THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.3437 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the decree and judgment, dated 12.06.2003, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal, in O.P.No.916/2000. The petitioner in the O.P. is the appellant herein. 2. Heard. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on 16.04.2000, the petitioner engaged a DCM Van bearing No. OR 02 5049 in which he loaded mirchi and when he was proceeding in the same vehicle, in the outskirts of Gudur village, on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver, it dashed against a standing lorry. The petitioner received injuries, he suffered fracture to his left arm, injury on eye brow and other parts of the body. He was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, where he took treatment as inpatient till 05.05.2000. He spent money for treatment. First respondent is the owner and second respondent is the insurer. First respondent remained exparte and second respondent filed counter denying the allegations. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the accident is due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle? 2. Whether the petitioner sustained any injuries and disability and is entitled to claim compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 policy was marked. 4. After considering the entire material on record, the learned trial Judge awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the claimant. 5. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any valid grounds for allowing the appeal? 6. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned trial Judge did not give proper reasons for granting compensation of Rs.15,000/-. The learned Judge held that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner suffered fracture. 7. It is seen even in the FIR, it is mentioned that the petitioner suffered fracture of left hand in the shoulder area. Ex.A2 discharge card of Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, shows that the petitioner suffered fracture. As there is some correction in the date of admission in the hospital, the learned trial Judge disbelieved Ex.A2. But other material would show that the petitioner subsequently underwent treatment for his left hand and Ex.A4 discharge card was also filed, but that was also not taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge as no Medical Officer was examined. As the FIR itself says that the petitioner suffered a fracture and at least there is some material in support of the said contention that the petitioner suffered fracture and underwent treatment, non-examination of the doctor itself may not disentitle the petitioner for compensation for the fracture he suffered, particularly when there is reference in the FIR about the petitioner suffering fracture and when there is some supporting material, there is no necessity of suspecting the petitioner suffering the fracture altogether. 8. Considering these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for compensation for the fracture he suffered. On account of the fracture, he must have spent some money for treatment and must have been out of work for some time etc. Though as there is no evidence with regard to the gravity of the injury suffered by him, on account of non- examination of Medical Officer, still as the petitioner says that he was inserted for taking treatment again at M.G.M. hospital for the same injury, granting compensation of Rs.15,000/- is on lower side. He underwent operations twice. For pain and suffering on both occasions for the injuries suffered, the petitioner can be granted compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and another amount of Rs.20,000/- for permanent portion of disability that he might have suffered on account of the injury. Thus, the petitioner would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.50,000/- and the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- from Rs.15,000/-. The rate of interest is at 7.5% per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the date of petition till the date of payment. The petitioner can withdraw the amount as and when deposited, as the accident has taken place in April 2000, i.e. more than ten years back. 9. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is partly allowed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 22nd June 2010, Rns