HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.539 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the petitioner-claimant against the order and decree in O.P. No.147 of 2003 vide orders dated 29.12.2004 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Asifabad. 2. Heard. 3. In this appeal, appellant is the petitioner-claimant, respondent No.1 is the owner of the auto bearing No. AP-1/U-5193 involved in the accident and the second respondent is the insurance company, with whom the offending vehicle is insured. 4. The facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows: On 03.01.2003 at about 4.00 p.m. while the claimant and others were proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP-1/U-5193 from Venkulam bus stop to Kagaznagar, when the auto reached near Chunnam Bhatti bus stop, to give side to the RTC bus coming from Kagaznagar, the driver of the auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, it turned turtle, due to which the petitioner received fracture of pelvis. Immediately, she was taken to nursing home at Kagaznagar where she took treatment as inpatient for five days. She also took treatment in other hospitals by spending Rs.15,000/-. She claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- contending that she is earning Rs.2,500/- per month as a cooli and due to the accident she lost her earnings for four months. 5. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte and respondent No.2, insurance company, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident occurred on 01.03.2003 due to rash and negligent driving of Auto No.AP-1/U-5193 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the claimant, the claimant got examined herself as PW.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 8. On the basis of the material available on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.5,500/-. Out of that Rs.1,500/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.1,500/-towards medical expenses, Rs.2,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.500/- towards transport expenses, holding that the second respondent alone is liable for payment of compensation. Aggrieved of the same, as stated above, the claimant preferred this appeal. 9. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for enhancing the compensation? 10. In this case having held that the petitioner suffered only one fracture, the court below granted Rs.5,500/-. Though it is not clearly mentioned in the trial court judgment as what was the fracture, the medical certificate reveals that the petitioner suffered fracture of pelvis. Though no other evidence is adduced with regard to the injury, as the finding of the trial court is that the petitioner suffered fracture. There is material to show that the fracture is of pelvis, which is somewhat a serious injury, the petitioner is a lady aged about 30 years at the time of accident. Considering these circumstances, I am inclined to grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- under all heads, i.e., pain and suffering, hospitalization, treatment, attendant charges and some permanent disability, which would be definitely suffered by her. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,500/- to Rs.50,000/-. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation is at 6% per annum. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 3, 2010. Rns