HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.990 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by I Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry (for brevity “the Tribunal”), in O.P.No.659 of 1998, by order, dated 02.12.2002, awarding a sum of Rs.74,700/- towards compensation for the injuries suffered by the petitioner therein-claimant, in a road accident that occurred on 10.06.1997, he filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The particulars as regards the manner and method in which the accident occurred, the aspect of rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, etc., are not in dispute and hence, they are not referred to. The only question that falls for consideration, in this appeal, is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? The claimant was also a driver of the lorry. When he was sleeping in front of the lorry, the driver of the offending vehicle, while taking reverse, drove the same across the claimant, as a result, his leg was totally smashed, for which he was treated in the hospital. P.W-3-Doctor, who treated the claimant, stated that he found multiple fractures to the claimant, which resulted in surgical operation. During the course of operation, steel plates were also inserted. He was treated for quite some time and also lost earnings for four months. P.W-2-doctor also stated that the leg of the claimant was shortened by one inch. He also issued the disability certificate to the effect that the claimant suffered partial permanent disability to an extent of 50%. However, it is the contention of the learned Standing counsel for the insurance company that the said disability certificate was issued by P.W-2-doctor who did not actually treat the claimant. This contention cannot be sustained for the simple reason that no objection has been taken by the insurance company during the course of examination of P.W-2 nor was it suggested in the cross- examination of P.W-2. In every case, only the doctor who treated the injured need not be examined. A qualified doctor, who is well acquainted with the injuries and their nature, after examining the injured, can express his view and the same can be accepted. In the present case, the claimant, admittedly, was a lorry driver and because of the permanent stiffness of his left hip joint and knee joint, the movements of the same are restricted, as such, naturally, he cannot continue his occupation as a driver, due to which, there will be substantial slash in his earning capacity. Therefore, I am of the view that the compensation fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.74,700/- is very low for such injuries suffered by the claimant. Further, a second operation is also necessary to the claimant to remove the steel plates that were inserted and that the pain and suffering can only be perceived but not explained. Therefore, I am of the view that the amount that was granted by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is desirable to be enhanced by Rs.20,000/- more. Thus, the total sum towards pain and suffering would come to Rs.30,000/- and that for medical expenses also, since the injuries are of such a nature that they require prolonged treatment, a further sum of Rs.5,000/- is desirable to be awarded. Therefore, the total compensation awarded to the claimant comes to Rs.99,700/- (Rupees Ninety nine thousand and seven hundred only). Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I feel it expedient to round off the said sum to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only). The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the said O.P. till the date of realization. Subject to the above modification of the impugned order, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part, to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 26th August 2010 dr