IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.679 OF 2001 BETWEEN Adapa Setaramanjaneyulu. …APPELLANT AND Dasari Dilip and others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the appellant: Mr. Ch. Dhanamjaya Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Ramachandra Reddy Gadi Mr. N. Bhaskar The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This appeal by the claimant is to the extent of disallowed claim in O.P.No.512 of 1997 filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Godavari District, seeking compensation of Rs.49,619.75 ps on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident dated 16.03.1997. 2. It is alleged that in the said accident the vehicle, driven by the first respondent, owned by the second respondent and insured by the third respondent, dashed against the claimant while overtaking another vehicle. The claimant claimed that he received severe injuries requiring treatment as inpatient in Government Hospital, Rajahmundry and he has spent substantial amount towards treatment apart from his loss of earning for the period during which he was hospitalized and that was required for recovery. The tribunal found rash and negligent driving on the part of the first respondent and to the extent of claim for compensation of the claimant a sum of Rs.21,000/- in aggregate was awarded, which comprised of Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings. Dissatisfied with the said award, the present appeal is filed by the claimant. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the injuries suffered by the claimant have not been properly appreciated by the tribunal below and that it disbelieved that the claimant suffered fracture of the right leg. Learned counsel relied upon Exs.A3 and A4, which are wound certificate and X-ray film of fractured right leg respectively. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that the tribunal has treated the injury as simple and has awarded meager amount. 5. I have seen Exs.A3 and A4. So far as Ex.A4 is concerned, it is an X-ray film showing fracture of the right leg suffered by the claimant. The wound certificate – Ex.A3 also shows the fracture to the base of the 5th metatarsil bone and fracture proximor etc. Both the said documents though exhibited, there is hardly any cross-examination doubting the said documents. It was suggested that the injuries received are simple injuries and the tribunal below accepted the said injuries as simple injuries ignoring Exs.A3 and A4. The tribunal also relied upon the charge sheet filed by the police against the driver of the offending vehicle under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code to conclude that the injuries suffered by the claimant are simple. The said conclusion of the tribunal is, therefore, clearly against Exs.A3 and A4 on record. The said finding, therefore, deserves interference. However, the injury being only fracture injury, the compensation awarded by the tribunal on other counts may also be augmented with respect to the said fracture injury. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to enhance the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal by a further sum of Rs.10,000/-, which shall meet ends of justice. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above and the enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 18, 2009 DSK