THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No. 666 of 2010 Oral judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) This M.A.C.M.A. is directed against the order dated 31.03.2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional Chief Judge, Visakhapatnam, in M.V.O.P. No. 977 of 2005, awarding compensation of Rs. 85,000/- to the appellant-claimant as against his claim for Rs.15,00,000/-, contending that the compensation awarded is very meagre and requires enhancement. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the accident, the right hand humerous of the appellant was fractured, and he was operated upon and was an in-patient in the hospital for 15 days, and considering the nature of injuries and Ex.A5-disability certificate issued by P.W.3, who deposed that the appellant suffered 45% permanent disability, the Tribunal ought to have calculated the compensation, based on the said disability. This submission of the appellant cannot be accepted. Even though Ex. A5-disability certificate issued by P.W.3 disclosed that the appellant suffered 45% permanent disability due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, but the fact remains, no reasons are assigned for justifying the disability, and this apart, the appellant did not prove the competency of P.W.3 to issue such a certificate, and on the other hand, in his cross-examination, he stated that the appellant is having good functional range. Since the appellant failed to prove satisfactorily that he suffered 45% permanent disability, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Tribunal, in not taking 45% permanent disability of the appellant for the purpose of computing the compensation. However, considering Exs. C1 and C2, namely the patient’s case sheet and wound certificate issued by NIMS, which showed that the appellant suffered fracture injuries of his right hand. And having regard to the fact that he was operated upon for the said injuries, and was an in-patient in a private hospital for 15 days and had spent amounts towards his treatment, and further considering the nature of injuries vis-à-vis his employment as Welder of Heavy Machines, which requires him to lift weights, we are of the considered opinion, that even though there is functional range, the nature of injuries sustained by him to the hand, will certainly have an adverse effect on the ability of lifting heavy weights during his lift time. Hence, considering the nature of injuries suffered by him which would stare him during his entire life and have an impact on discharging his duties as a Welder and considering the expenses incurred by the appellant for his treatment, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by another Rs.1,00,000/-. Accordingly, we enhance the compensation from Rs.85,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under different heads to Rs.1,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is partly allowed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 14th December, 2011 KSR