HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.M.A.No.947 of 2001 Dt.31.12.2009 Between: G.Jangaiah .. Appellant And United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Hyderabad. .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.M.A.No.947 of 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant, who is a professional tractor driver, who was injured in the accident that occurred on 1.10.1997 and on that day when the claimant was driving the tractor, the offending vehicle tanker bearing No.AP13T 3530 said to have dashed against the tractor, resulting in injuries to the claimant requiring his hospitalization and treatment at Osmania General Hospital for four or five days. The present claim for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was sought in O.P.No.647 of 1998 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, against first and second respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. In the said O.P., the Tribunal below on consideration of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest thereon at 12% per annum. The Tribunal found that there was no disability and the fracture injury was only grievous one, which was also healed, and therefore awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and attendance with interest at 12% per annum. Dissatisfied to the extent of disallowing the rest of the claim, the present appeal is filed. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the evidence of P.W.2, Orthopedic Surgeon in Osmania General Hospital, who examined and issued Ex.A-4 case sheet relating to the treatment, and contends that even as per the said Orthopedic Surgeon there is deformity on left foot and on account of metatarsal fracture the appellant’s profession as driver of the tractor is affected and as the doctor himself certifies that the appellant would have difficulty in driving the tractor, he submits that some compensation to that extent has not been granted by the Tribunal below and therefore the appeal deserves to be allowed to that extent. Learned counsel for the respondent – insurance company, however, submits that the claim for simple injuries received by the appellant has already been considered by the Tribunal and it warrants no interference by this Court. I have considered the rival contentions of both the learned counsel and the evidence of P.W.2, Orthopedic Surgeon, who examined the appellant and who gave evidence with reference to Ex.A-4 case sheet. No doubt, there is deformity in the left foot and the X-ray also shows fracture of 2nd and 3rd metatarsal balls. P.W.2, who examined the claimant, states that though the fractures are united the claimant complains of pain and difficulty in walking. Exs.A-5 is the X-ray and Ex.A-6 is the wound certificate. The said evidence therefore clearly shows that the appellant is affected on account of the said accident. The Tribunal below has granted a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. Therefore, interests of justice would be met by taking into account the evidence of P.W.2, a further sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the claimant. The appeal is therefore allowed in part granting a further sum of Rs.10,000/- as against Rs.20,000/- granted by the Tribunal below towards pain and suffering and the compensation to the extent of Rs.5000/- granted by the Tribunal towards medical expenses and attendance needs no interference. The appeal is therefore allowed in part. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realization. No order as to costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 31.12.2009 kpr