HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A.No.408 of 2005 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2004 in O.P.No.1016 of 2002 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Judge (FTC) City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the claim petition was partly allowed awarding a total compensation of Rs.48,000/- with interest at 6% per annum as against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/- under all heads, the claimant filed this appeal inter alia on the following grounds: That the Tribunal failed to consider the grievous injuries suffered by the appellant; that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.30,000/- for each fracture; that the Tribunal erred in disbelieving the evidence of PW.2 who assessed the disability at 25% and that the Tribunal failed to award the compensation as claimed by the appellant under different heads in spite of sufficient evidence on record. 2. The parties herein shall be referred to as they were arrayed in the O.P. 3. The brief facts of the case that led to filing the present appeal are that on 28.10.2001 the petitioner was coming from agriculture field to Marchal village on foot. When he reached at Jammalamadugu, tractor bearing No.AP-22 D-1139 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner from behind, as a result, the petitioner’s left leg was crushed and he received grievous fracture injuries to his left leg, head injury and multiple injuries all over his body. P.S.Kalwakurthy registered a case in crime No.93/01 under Section 338 IPC against the driver of the tractor. The petitioner was shifted to Community hospital at Kalwakurthy and he underwent treatment as inpatient. Subsequently, he took treatment in a private hospital. He was aged 47 years, doing agriculture and earning Rs.3,000/- per month at the time of the accident. 4. The first respondent-owner filed counter inter alia stating that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the second respondent and the insurance policy was in force and therefore, the petition against him is liable to be dismissed. 5. The second respondent filed counter denying the petition averments and stated that the petitioner has to prove his age, income, occupation, injuries sustained by him in the accident, his admission in community hospital, Kalwakurthy and rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor. It is denied that respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and the same was insured with the insurance company. 6. Basing on the pleadings of both sides, the relevant issues were framed as to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor and as to the entitlement of the petitioner and the liability of the respondents to pay the compensation. 7. During the course of trial, the petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 besides examining a Doctor as PW.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent, no witnesses were examined but Ex.B.1- insurance policy was marked. 8. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence and other material brought on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tractor and the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.48,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the claimant. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner in his arguments reiterated the contentions which are raised in the grounds of appeal. 10. It is to be seen that as per Ex.A.3, there was a rash injury on the lower knee of the left leg and it was grievous in nature and an abraded contusion on the left knee joint on frontal aspect and it was a simple injury. Further, it is mentioned in Ex.A.3 that the patient was referred to District Head Quarter hospital for expert treatment on 29.10.2001. Ex.A.5 is the out-patient ticket of A.P.Vaidya Vidhana Parishad dated 8.11.2001. As per Ex.A.7, the petitioner took treatment at Vijaya Orthopaedic Centre on 20.11.2001 and 25.12.2001. The evidence of PW.2, who issued disability certificate to the petitioner, is that the petitioner approached him for treatment on 20.11.2001 and 25.12.2001 and thereafter the petitioner did not visit his clinic for treatment. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal discarded Ex.A.11- disability certificate issued by PW.2. 11. This court has thoroughly gone through the record and is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has reasonably awarded the compensation under different heads except awarding meagre amount of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. Since, the petitioner suffered grievous injuries and he took treatment in different hospitals, this court is of the view that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering instead of Rs.5,000/-, which is just and reasonable compensation and the same is hereby awarded. Thus, the total compensation is enhanced from Rs. 48,000/- to Rs.63,000/-. Therefore, it is held that the appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.63,000/- (Rupees Sixty Three Thousand) only with interest at 7.5% per annum so far as the enhanced compensation is concerned. 12. With the above modification, the C.M.A. is disposed of. No order as to costs. ​ _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 22 -10-2010 Stp