THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 147 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Having aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.9.2007 in M.V.O.P.No. 1047 of 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur, the present M.A.C.M.A. is filed mainly urging that the tribunal below failed to grant compensation while assessing the disability of the injured and the compensation granted by the tribunal below is meager and requested for enhancement of compensation. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal below. M.V.O.P.No. 1047 of 2005 was filed by the Mohammed Aslam Baig, the appellant herein. Before the tribunal below, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and examined Dr. A. Srinivasa Rao as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-12 and Ex.X-1. The tribunal below while assessing the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the documents relied on by the petitioner-appellant granted a compensation of Rs. 35,000/- against the claim of Rs. 1 lakh. The factum of accident was not disputed. Admittedly P.W.2 is not treated the injured and one Dr. Lakshamana Swamy treated and examined the injured. However, Ex.A-1 to A-12 were marked by the tribunal below. As seen from the Ex.A-12 certified copy of the wound certificate, Ex.A-8 certificate issued by Dr. Lakshmana Swamy and as spoken to by P.W.2, P.W.1 sustained one grievous injury i.e. fracture of both bones of left leg. Ex.X-1 is the case sheet pertaining to the petitioner herein. It is the evidence of P.W.-2 Dr. A. Srinivasa Rao that P.W.1 was operated on 24.7.2005 and was discharged on 28.7.2005 and P.W.2 found shortening of left lower limb by one inch, restriction of movements at the left knee after 90 degrees and restriction of terminal decrease of left ankle. He noted that the petitioner finds difficulty in sitting cross legs and squatting. But, during the course of cross examination he asserted that there is no hindrance to lead his life as a mechanic. While taking into consideration, the evidence of P.W.2, the tribunal below awarded a sum f Rs. 25,000/- towards the fracture injury. In my view the aforesaid amount is meager. Therefore, granting of Rs. 30,000/- on that score is just and reasonable and the same is granted. The tribunal below awarded an amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards the pain and suffering and the same is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. The findings of the tribunal below while awarding the compensation towards the transportation, attendant, extra nourishment etc. charges and medical expenses needs no interference. However, the tribunal below granted interest @ 7% per annum, but however the same is reduced to 6% per annum as per the decision reported in SARLA VERMA (SMT) & OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS[1]. With this modification, the C.M.A. is allowed and the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 47,000/- against the compensation of Rs. 35,000/- granted by the tribunal below. The enhanced compensation shall carry rate of interest @ 6% per annum. ___________________ 25.4.2011 CHV [1] 2009(6) S.C.C. 121