THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO.2740 of 2011 JUDGMENT:- The appeal is filed by the claimant questioning the quantum of compensation in M.V.O.P.No.807 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool. According to the case of the petitioner, on 14-07-2002 while he was going in a Maruthi Esteem Car bearing No.AP.9AA 426 and when he stopped at the petrol bunk, at that time one lorry bearing No.T.N.33/P- 0606 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car, as a result of which, the petitioner received multiple injuries and suffered disability and was treated in the hospital and spent money for treatment. He made a claim for Rs.5 lakhs. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and second respondent is the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company has disputed the nature of the incident and nature of injuries and quantum of compensation. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal accepted the cause of incident and granted a compensation of Rs.1,28,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT:- So far as the nature of the incident and nature of injuries received by the petitioner are concerned, there is not of much dispute. The petitioner has examined PW.3 who treated the petitioner and also PW.2, a member of the Medical Board, who has examined the petitioner and issued Ex.A- 13 disability certificate opining that he has got 40% physical disability due to post traumatic paresis. As can be seen from the evidence on record, the petitioner is said to have received fracture on both clavicle bone, compression of chest, head injury and also injury to the spinal card. He was said to have been treated in hospital for nearly two months. Towards the medical expenses, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.30,000/- and for the pain and suffering a sum of Rs.15,000/- was granted and towards disability a sum of Rs.75,000/- was granted. Totally, a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- was granted. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though future disability is taken into consideration, the Tribunal has not considered about the loss of earnings for the period of treatment of the petitioner. He further contended that grant of compensation of Rs.15,000/- for the injuries is on lower side taking into account the number of injuries suffered by the petitioner and pain and suffering is more. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 clearly goes to show that the petitioner has suffered fracture of clavicle and also injury to the vertebra. Taking into consideration the fact that a competent medical board has given the percentage of disability 40% the compensation towards pain and suffering appears to be on lower side. Therefore, I feel ends of justice would meet if compensation is enhanced to Rs.1,75,000/- in stead of Rs.1,28,000/- as granted by the lower Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in-part while enhancing the compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- in stead of Rs.1,28,000/- as granted by the lower Tribunal. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 14-11-2011 TSNR