THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.739 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the petitioner- claimant against the decree and order, dated 10.11.1999, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum - III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, in O.P.No.487 of 1997. 2. Heard. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on 15.04.1997 at about 5.00 p.m. the petitioner was proceeding to Vegetable market from his house on a scooter bearing No. AIM 2943, at Kaman near petrol pump, lorry bearing No.AIJ 5085 came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the scooter of the petitioner. Petitioner received grievous injuries to his right hand, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Karimnagar and there after, he was referred to Osmania Hospial but he joined in Medwin Hospital, Hyderabad and took treatment. A case in Cr.No.152 of 1997 under Section 338 IPC was registered. First and second respondents, driver and owner of the lorry respectively remained ex parte. Third respondent filed counter denying the allegations of the petition. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AIJ-5085 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 policy was marked. 4. After considering the entire material on record, the Court below awarded compensation of Rs.56,337/-. Out of which, Rs.7,500/- for pain and suffering, Rs.40,237/- for medicines and treatment, Rs.3,600/- for loss of earnings, Rs.2,000/- for extra nourishment, Rs.1,000/- for transportation and Rs.2,000/- for damages to the scooter. Aggrieved by the above quantum, the present appeal is filed by the claimant. 5. Now, the contention of the appellant-claimant is that the claimant suffered three crush injuries on right hand on account of which he was on leave for around one month and incurred permanent disability, as such, the compensation awarded by the Court below is inadequate. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that as there was no satisfactory evidence with regard to the disability suffered by the petitioner, the Court granted appropriate compensation and it is not a case for enhancement. 6. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any valid grounds for allowing the appeal? 7. There is no dispute about the accident. There is also no dispute about the petitioner suffering crush injury of right hand. The Court granted Rs.40,237/- towards treatment. It has accepted that the petitioner underwent treatment at Medwin Hospital, Hyderabad as inpatient for about one month, though there is no fracture, for more than 20 days he was hospitalized, it would show the gravity of the injury he suffered on his right hand. The Court below has not granted any amount towards charges for attendant during the period of his hospitalization including transportation and nothing was granted for the disability suffered by the petitioner, on account of which, he would suffer future inconvenience also. 8. Considering these circumstances, I am inclined to grant compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges and transport and another Rs.10,000/- towards the disability suffered by the petitioner. Thus, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.15,000/- and the total compensation is Rs.71,337/- which shall bear the interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 9. C.M.A. is accordingly allowed in part. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 5th July 2010, Rns