IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.33 OF 2008 Between:- Sindhe Bhujang Rao …Appellant A n d K.Satyanarayana and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.33 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03-07-2007 in O.P.No.375 of 2004, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III- Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad (for short ‘the tribunal’), wherein the claim of appellant was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.24,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records. 3. The appellant herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.2 lakhs on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10-07-2003. According to the appellant, on that day, he was travelling in a jeep bearing No.AAJ 1286 from Armoor to Nizamabad and at about 08-00 p.m., when the jeep reached Ramchandrapally village, a lorry bearing No.AAK 2295, driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the jeep, as a result of which, the claimant sustained multiple injuries. A case in Cr.No.102 of 2003 was registered against the driver of the lorry by Makloor Police. The claimant sustained fracture of both bones of right leg, right hand besides other injuries. He was taken Government Hospital, Niazamabad. It is further pleaded that the claimant was an agriculturist, earning Rs.10,000/- per month and he was also doing private business and on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, he sustained loss of earning capacity. 4. The owner of the vehicle and the insurer filed counters opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AAK 2295? ii) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation. If so, from which respondents and what just amount? iv) To what relief? 6. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral evidence was adduced by the insurer, but Ex.B-1 copy of the policy was marked. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The tribunal also held that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.24,000/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. Not satisfied with the same, the claimant preferred the present appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. As seen from the impugned order, the medical evidence of P.W.2, the doctor, coupled with Ex.A-3 certified copy of medical certificate establish that the claimant suffered fracture of both bones of the right leg, besides fracture of right colles and also other simple injuries. P.W.2 has testified to the nature of the injuries and also the treatment given by him to the claimant. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/- for fracture of both bones of right leg and Rs.5,000/- for fracture of right colles and Rs.1,500/- for the simple injuries. It is considered that the amount of Rs.7,500/- granted by the tribunal for the fracture of both bones of right leg is meagre and the same is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, while retaining the amount of Rs.5,000/- granted for fracture of right colles and Rs.1,500/- for the simple injuries. The tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards cost of treatment, Rs.2,000/- towards cost of medicines and Rs.1,000/- towards transportation charges and extra nourishment and Rs.2,000/- towards loss of earnings. All the above amounts are considered to be just and reasonable. However, having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, which included three fractures, the claimant ought to have undergone acute pain, besides incurring some expenditure for the attendant, as the claimant would necessarily have taken the assistance of someone, owing to his immobility. The claimant is, therefore, entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.4,000/- towards attendant charges. 9. In the circumstances, the claimant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.40,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 10. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed-in-part to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 13th August, 2010. Lrkm.