IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A.NO.412 OF 2006 Date: 12.08.2011 Between: Shaik Basheer .....Appellant/Petitioner AND M. Mallikarjuna and another ....Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A. No.412 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2005 passed in M.V.O.P. No.260 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nellore, claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The brief facts are that on 15.11.2003, when the claimant was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.AP 26 U 4640 belonging to respondent No.1, to Nellore, near V Town Police Station, the driver of the autorickshaw drove it in a rash and negligent manner and lost control, as a result of which the auto rickshaw turned turtle. The claimant sustained multiple injuries and she was treated in both the private and Government hospitals at Nellore. She suffered disability. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the autorickshaw and respondent No.2, the National Insurance Company Limited, is insurer of the autorickshaw. Hence, the claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.80,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident. 3. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte and respondent No.2 alone filed its counter while denying the averments made in the claim petition and also disputing the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the nature of treatment. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred out of the use of the motor vehicle of respondent No.1? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B.1- a copy of the insurance policy of the autorickshaw was marked. 6. The Tribunal, after evaluating both oral and documentary evidence, awarded a total compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the claimant as against her claim of Rs.80,000/-, payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the same, claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 7. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the appellant-claimant is entitled to any enhancement of compensation? 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant claimant is that Ex.A.3 wound certificate reveals that the claimant had suffered one simple injury and one grievous injury and that as per the evidence of P.W.2, medical witness she had suffered 15% of disability to her right shoulder. However, the Tribunal has not considered Ex.A.3 as well as the evidence of P.W.2 while awarding compensation though an amount of Rs.30,000/- was claimed by the claimant towards the disability. He further contended that though the claimant claimed a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of her treatment for about four months, the Tribunal failed to consider and award any compensation for the same. He also contended that the Tribunal has also failed to award any amount towards extra nourishment, attendant and transportation charges. The learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal considered only pain and suffering and awarded a meagre amount of Rs.12,000/- for the same and another meagre amount of Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses though the claimant incurred huge amount towards medical expenses. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2, insurance company, contended that as the evidence of P.W.2 medical witness was to the effect that he could not treat the claimant since she absconded from the hospital on the date of her admission itself i.e., on 15.11.2003, Ex.A.4 prescription dated 15.11.2003 and Ex.A.9 prescription dated 23.9.2005 issued by P.W.2 were not believed by the Tribunal. Moreover Ex.A.5 prescription dated 2.1.2004 was also not considered as the author of the said exhibit Dr. P. Krishana Reddy was not examined. The evidence of P.W.2, medical witness is solely based on Ex.A.6 case sheet, as such, his evidence was not considered by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the Tribunal taking into consideration the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant as stated in Ex.A.3 wound certificate and considering that she has also suffered pain and suffering due to the injuries and that she must have spent some amount towards medical expenses, granted Rs.12,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal also considered that though the claimant had suffered a simple fracture, the same was united. Thus, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation and as such the same does not warrant any interference by this court. 10. Though the claimant has claimed a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards her disability, the Tribunal has not considered the same and did not award any amount towards compensation. The Tribunal has also not considered the claim under other heads like extra nourishment, loss of earning, attendant and transportation charges. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that as the claimant has suffered fracture of her right shoulder and though it was stated to be united, the permanent disability cannot be ruled out and the fractured bone will not be in the same condition as it was before the accident and the disability on account thereof is bound to continue, as such, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.5,000/-, towards fracture suffered by her, Rs.5,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of earnings and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment, attendant and transportation charges, totalling to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) and the same are accordingly awarded. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by another Rs.20,000/- and thus the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only). The rate of interest on the enhanced compensation shall be at 6% per annum. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. No costs. ____________________ N.RAO NALLA, J. 12.08.2011 Gk. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A.NO.412 OF 2006 Date:12.08.2011 Gk.