THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2033 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 01.08.2006, in M.V.O.P.No.138 of 2001 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor, wherein the said claim application filed by the appellant herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Appellant herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.11.2000. According to the claimant, on that day, while she was travelling in a bus on Chittoor-Bangalore road, a lorry dashed against the bus resulting in multiple injuries to the claimant. A case in Cr.No.39 of 2000 was registered against the driver of the lorry. According to the claimant, she was given first aid at Bangarupalem hospital and later shifted to C.M.C. hospital, Vellore, where she was treated as inpatient for 16 days. She further pleaded that the injuries resulted in permanent disability. 1st respondent- owner of the lorry and the 2nd respondent-insurer filed counters opposing the liability and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 4. During enquiry before the Tribunal, P.W.s1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The said finding is not challenged by way of any appeal by the respondents. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest @ 7.5%. Not satisfied with the same, claimant preferred the present appeal. The medical evidence on record, particularly the testimony of P.W.3- doctor, who treated the claimant, coupled with Ex.A2- wound certificate and Ex.A5 (a) & (b)-disability certificates would show that the claimant sustained two injuries on the left and right knee joint and she was treated as inpatient in C.M.C. hospital, Vellore. P.W.3 further testified that the injury has resulted in malunion of the fracture with deformity of both bones of left leg. He issued the disability certificate-Ex.A5(a) assessing the disability at 40%. The claimant produced another certificate-Ex.A5 (b) which was issued two years later, wherein the disability was assessed at 15% only. Having regard to the fact that Ex.A5 (b) was issued about four years after the accident, the Tribunal has rightly observed that the extent of disability appears to have come down over the period of time and therefore took Ex.A5 (b) into consideration and assessed the disability at 15%. Taking the income of the claimant, who is a labourer, at Rs.12,000/- per annum and applying the multiplier of ‘16’ suitable to her age the Tribunal estimated the loss of earning capacity on account of 15% disability and estimated loss of dependency at Rs.28,800/- and rounded off the same to Rs.30,000/-. The said amount awarded towards loss of earning capacity on account of 15% disability does not call for any interference. The Tribunal however failed to award any amount towards medical expenses or further charges incurred by the claimant in connection with her treatment and that he was taken to different hospitals at Bangarupuram and Vellore. Having regard to the fact that the claimant sustained fracture and was hospitalized for about 16 days, it is considered just and appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.5000/- towards extra nourishment; Rs.5000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.5000/- towards transportation charges. Thus, the claimant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the petition and @ 6% on the enhanced amount from the date of the appeal. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 6. In the result, appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 11th November, 2011 Tsy