HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2730 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.309 of 1993 vide order dated 18-08-1998 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – Additional District Judge, Medak, Sangareddy, claimant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Appellant is claimant, respondent No.1, who is owner of the lorry bearing No.DL – IG - 6823 involved in the accident, is respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, who is insurer of the above lorry, is respondent No.2 in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 21-03-1993 at about 8-00 AM, while he was going on his bicycle in the bus stand area of Toopran (v), lorry bearing No.DL – IG – 6823 belonging to respondent No.1 and being driven by its driver, came in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed and dashed against the claimant, as a result, claimant sustained multiple injuries and fractures to his left leg and closed head injury. Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where he was treated as inpatient from 21-02-1993 to 24-02-1993. Thereafter, he took treatment in Thirumala Nursing Home, Namalagundu, Secunderabad, where he was treated from 25-02-1993 to 04-04-1993. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.60,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte and respondent No.2 filed a counter denying the case of the claimant. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred on 21-2-93 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry DLIG 6823 and the claimant received the injuries in the said accident ? 2. Whether the said lorry was insured with R-2 at the time of accident ? 3. Whether the claimant is entitled for any compensation, at what quantum? 4. To what relief?” 7. To prove his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-43. On behalf of respondent No.2, insurance company, no witness was examined except marking Ex.B-1, copy of the insurance policy, with consent. 8. Based on the material on record, Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the claimant. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant preferred this appeal. 9. Now contention of the learned counsel for the claimant is that claimant suffered two fractures i.e., one on leg and another on foot, as such, compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is totally inadequate. 10. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 11. Undoubtedly, no authentic evidence is produced by the claimant to show that he sustained two fractures. Even according to the claimant, after the accident, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, where he was inpatient from 21-02-1993 to 24-02-1993 i.e., jus for three days. In case, claimant sustained very serious injuries, in all probability, he would not have been discharged from that hospital within three days. Though the claim of the claimant is that he took treatment in Thirumala Nursing Home from 25-02-1993 to 04-04-1993, it is difficult to believe the same, as there is no material to show that Thirumala Nursing Home has better facilities. For the injuries sustained by the claimant i.e., fracture of his left leg, perhaps, there was no necessity to shift him to a private nursing home. 12. Considering the above circumstances and as the contention of the claimant is that he sustained two fractures and took treatment in a private hospital, for which he is unable to produce relevant material for the same, I hold that enhancing the compensation by another Rs.10,000/- would meet the ends of justice and it is accordingly enhanced to Rs.25,000/- from Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only). The rate of interest on the enhanced compensation shall be at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. It is made clear that the rate of interest on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall be as ordered by it. The claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation soon after its deposit. 13. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J October 28, 2010. PV