THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1635 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appellant-claimant filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order, dated 28.10.2002, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in O.P.No.626 of 1999. On 22.03.1999, while the appellant, his son and his mother were traveling on the scooter bearing No.AEO 1545 from Vemulawada to Karimnagar and at about 1.00 pm, when they reached the road between Sankepalli and Nampalli Villages, a van bearing No.AP-15- T-810 driven by the first respondent, owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed from their behind and dashed their scooter with great force, as a result of which, all of them fell down and sustained fatal injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to the Government District Headquarters Hospital, Karimnagar, but the mother of the appellant succumbed to injuries on the way to the hospital. It is stated that the appellant sustained grievous multiple abrasion on his left side frontal region, left temporal contusion and he was admitted in NIMS, Hyderabad and treated as in-patient, and after discharge, he was on bed for four months by visiting NIMS periodically and incurred huge amounts. It is also stated that the appellant developed giddiness and unable to attend to his contract works, resulting in loss of his earnings. He filed O.P.No.626 of 2001 claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The first and second respondents remained ex parte. The third respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made and contending that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van by its driver. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.17,000/- to the appellant-claimant. Dissatisfied with the said quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by the appellant- claimant. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that having considered the material on record made available by the appellant, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation as sought for and that it has erred in computing his loss of earnings. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. There is no dispute with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. The dispute is only with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. A perusal of the impugned award goes to show that though the Tribunal relied upon Ex.A2-Certified copy of medical certificate issued by the NIMS, Hyderabad, wherein it was stated that the appellant sustained grievous injuries, it failed to consider the same, while granting compensation. The appellant has filed Ex.A6-bunch of medical bills, Ex.A7-out-patient card issued by the NIMS, Hyderabad, Ex.A8-bunch of cash receipts and Ex.A9-Discharge record, to show that he had sustained injuries, which required regular medical attention and treatment for a period of six months, and that he had to spend huge amounts towards such treatment. In normal circumstances, a victim of an accident is expected to be under much pressure and would have undergone mental agony. In the case on hand, the appellant had suffered for a long period of six months. The Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration of the said fact, while granting the compensation. Therefore, in my opinion, the appellant is entitled to be granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards the medical & other incidental expenses and the mental agony he had suffered due to the accident in question. That apart, though the appellant specifically pleaded that his requirement to undergo treatment for the said injuries for a continuous period of six months had resulted in loss of his earnings, the Tribunal did not consider the said fact and failed to award any compensation towards the same. The appellant is stated to have been working as a contractor as on the date of the accident and that he could not attend to his work due to the said accident. Therefore, the appellant might have suffered financially also for the said period of six months and as such, he is entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of his earnings during the said period. In all, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded as compensation to the appellant. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in-part. No costs. ____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. Date:12.08.2010 VGB