HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CMA No. 3642 of 2000: Date:18.12.2009: Between: Gandham Govind Rajulu …Appellant And A.Narsaiah and others ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CMA No. 3642 of 2000: JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the injured-appellant against the award, dated 23.12.1997 in O.P.No.612 of 1993 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additoinal District Judge,) Nizambad. 2. The injured-claimant claimed compensation of Rs.100,000/- in respect of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.03.1993 while he was traveling in the R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP-9Z-3895 which allegedly dashed a lorry bearing No. MH-26-7272 on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus. 3. Against the said claim, on considering the material on record, the learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.15,500/- holding that the accident was solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus and accordingly fastened the liability only on the A.P.S.R.T.C. So far as the fastening of the liability on A.P.S.R.T.C., the finding of the Tribunal became final and no challenge has been made by any of the parties to the said finding. 4. The present appeal is filed by the claimant on the ground that the compensation granted is not just and reasonable and requires enhancement. 5. According to the appellant, he was a stone cutter aged 46 years on the date of accident and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. However, the appellant except examining himself as PW-1 and marking Ex.A-2 certified copy of injury certificate, Ex.A-6 x-ray film and Ex.A-7 case sheet, did not examine the doctor who treated him. In any event, the question that has to be determined is whether the appellant has sustained permanent disability and a reliance can be placed on the contents of Ex.A-2 injury certificate and Ex.A-7 case sheet which are marked without any objection from the opposite parties. The learned Tribunal having found that it is clear from Ex.A-7 case sheet, which was, noticed that after taking x-rays, the appellant sustained fracture to the right tibia. The learned Tribunal having noticed the same, awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the injuries, Rs.3,000/- towards pain and suffering and an amount of Rs.2500/- for purchase of medicines and extra nourishment. In all, the appellant was granted an amount of Rs.15,500/- towards compensation. 6. According to this Court, the learned Tribunal has not properly assessed the compensation with reference to the injuries borne out from Exs.A-2 and A-7 since Exs.A-2 and A-7 have been marked without any objection from the opposite parties and the proceedings before the learned Tribunal being summary in nature, there is no legal impediment for the Tribunal to rely on the contents of Exs.A-2 and A-7 to award compensation. In Ex.A-2, three simple injuries were noted and it is found from Ex.A-7 case sheet that the appellant sustained fracture to the right leg. The fracture to the right leg correspondents to one of the simple injuries mentioned in Ex.A-2 wound certificate. Therefore, the appellant can be compensated for two simple injuries and one grievous injury. For the two simple injuries sustained by the appellant, an amount of Rs.8,000/- i.e. Rs.4,000/- per injury can be granted. For the fracture of right leg which is a grievous injury, an amount of Rs.15,000/- can be granted. This apart, an amount of Rs.10,000/- can be granted towards pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal, however, though some medical bills have been produced, considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant and the treatment underwent, granted an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards medicines and extra nourishment which requires no interference in this appeal. Thus, in all the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.35,500/-. The enhancement, therefore, would be Rs.20,000/-. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R. KANTHA RAO ,J Date:18.12.2009 ccm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CMA No3642 of 2000: Date:18.12.2009: