THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.94 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed against the orders in O.P.No.1097 of 1998, dated 20-08-2001 on the file of the Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking enhancement of compensation on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant. The appellant on 31-12-1997 at about 11.30 PM was going on a motorcycle from B.K.Guda towards Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar. The bus bearing registration No.2 T 3834, belonging to the first respondent, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle and as a result, the appellant fell down and sustained injuries. He was taken to S.R.Nagar Police Station and then shifted to Gandhi Hospital. He was again shifted to Mediciti Hospital and underwent treatment for one week. Later, he was shifted to Satya Kidney Center and underwent treatment there. On account of the injuries sustained by him, he filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Section 140 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.89,500/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The appellant, having felt that the compensation is not adequate, has filed the present appeal. The appellant examined himself as P.W.1, besides examining the Doctor as P.W.2 and another person as P.W.3. He filed documents Exs.A1 to A9. The first respondent does not appear to have contested the matter, despite entering appearance through an Advocate. The second respondent - Insurance Company resisted the claim on the ground that the appellant was drunk while driving the motorcycle and under the influence of alcohol, dashed against the vehicle coming in the opposite direction. The second respondent - Insurance Company filed Exs.B1 and B2 documents. The Tribunal formulated issues, as to whether the appellant suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No. AP 2 T 3834 ? ; or due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing No. AP 9 T 1006 by the appellant ? ; or whether the accident was due to the composite negligence of both the drivers?. The Tribunal also formulated the issue, whether the appellant was entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount ? Based on the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No. AP 2 T 3834. The award passed by the Tribunal has not been challenged by the respondents and the finding therein regarding rash and negligence has become final. Therefore, the issue relating to rash and negligence need not be gone into in this appeal. The point for consideration in the appeal is whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation and if so, to what amount? The accident is not in dispute. The appellant in his evidence as P.W.1 stated that he sustained fracture to his right leg and injury to his head and back. He was taken to S.R. Police Station in the first instance and then to Gandhi Hospital, where he was treated for a day. As he did not receive proper care, he had to go to Mediciti Hospital. In the Mediciti Hospital he was treated for one week. He was again shifted to Satya Kidney Hospital, Himayathnagar and his leg was operated upon and steel rods were fixed. He also deposed that he is feeling difficulty in working. He also deposed that he was working in Sai Industries on a monthly salary of Rs.2,500/- and that he was not in a position to do that job. He is presently running STD/PCO. He filed Ex.A5 - discharge summary of Mediciti Hospital and Ex.A6 - Discharge summary of Satya kidney center. He also filed receipts as Ex.A7, discharge bills issued by the Mediciti Hospital as Ex.A8 and a bunch of medical bills as Ex.A9. In his cross-examination, he denied that the bills produced by him were fabricated and that his claim was excessive. The second respondent – Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence except Exs.B1 and B2. Ex.B1 is the accident register signed by the Casualty Medical Officer. It is the preliminary examination report endorsing that the opinion could not be given as the patient left against the medical advice. Ex.B2 is the Insurance Policy. From this evidence of the second respondent – Insurance Company, it cannot be said that the appellant was claiming compensation based on fabricated medical bills. On the other hand, the appellant got examined the Doctor as P.W.2. P.W.2 deposed that the appellant was operated on his right tibia and right femur and steel rods were fixed. He also deposed that skin grafting was done around the right knee joint and that all the fractures are grievous. However, he also deposed that there was no permanent disability. He also admitted that the Medical Bills and Discharge Summary filed in the Court were issued by the Hospital. P.W.3, the father of the appellant, also deposed the manner in which the appellant was treated in the Hospitals. From the evidence of P.W.1 supported by the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and the fact that the appellant was shifted from place to place, I am of the opinion that the compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering as awarded by the Tribunal is not just and adequate. I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.10,000/- on this account. In other words, the appellant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.5,000/- on account of pain and suffering. The Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- towards two fractures suffered by the appellant. The evidence of P.W.2 clearly disclose that the appellant suffered four fractures as follows : (1) Fracture of Shaft Femur Right. (2) Fracture of shaft of Tibia Right. (3) Fracture Fibula right side. (4) Fracture of Temporal bones. The evidence of P.W.2 also shows that besides fixing the steel rods, the appellant had to undergo skin grafting around his right knee joint. Taking the same into consideration, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on this account. In other words, the appellant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- on account of the fractures and skin grafting suffered by him. Ex.A7 is the bunch of 9 receipts issued by Satya Clinic Center whereby the appellant incurred an expenditure of Rs.37,050/-. He also incurred an expenditure of Rs.12,716.89 in the Mediciti Hospital as per the evidence in Ex.A8. Ex.A9 is a bunch of medical bills, which disclose that the appellant further incurred an expenditure of Rs.5,485/-. Thus, the appellant spent Rs.55,251.89 under Exs.A7 to A9. The Tribunal, however, restricted this amount to Rs.50,000/- on the ground that the appellant did not examine anybody with regard to these bills. As noted by me earlier, there was no dispute with reference to these bills and the amounts reflected therein should have been awarded. Thus, the appellant is entitled for Rs.55,251.89 paise towards his treatment. He is thus entitled to an enhancement of Rs.5,251/- rounded to Rs.5,000/- on this account. The Tribunal by taking into consideration the income of Rs.1,500/- per month, awarded Rs.4,500/- towards past earnings. In my opinion, as the appellant did not examine anybody to support his statement that he was earning Rs.2,500/- per month, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable. From the above, I am of the opinion that it is just and reasonable to award a total compensation of Rs.1,19,500/- as against the total compensation of Rs.89,500/-as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the appellant is entitled for the differential enhancement amount of Rs.30,000/- with interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The award in O.P. No.1097 of 1998, dated 20-08-2001 on the file of the Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is modified accordingly and the appeal is allowed in part. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 29th January, 2010. skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.94 of 2002 Date : -01-2010 Between : G.Nagaraju .. Appellant And Newland Laboratories Ltd., rep. by T.Chandrashekhar, Owner of Bus bearing No. AP 2 T 3834, R/o 16-6-33, Chaderghat, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents