THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO.168 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 26.06.2007 in O.P.No.1465 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge) (FTC), Nizamabad {“the Tribunal” for brevity}. The appellant herein is the petitioner in O.P.No.1465 of 2004. The Tribunal, while assessing the evidence on record, granted a sum of Rs.57,000/- towards compensation against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present MACMA is filed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly urged that the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal below is very meager, though there is disability of 25% and that the Tribunal below failed to grant any compensation towards pain and suffering and requested for enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company, while attacking the said arguments, urged that the Tribunal below, for the reasons best known to it, granted compensation arriving at disability at 25%, though there is no disability certificate and therefore, the compensation granted by the Tribunal below is erroneous. Now, the point for consideration is whether the appellant- petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation. As seen from the cause title, the appellant is aged about 22 years and she is a housewife and her occupation is noted as agriculture. In support of her occupation, she filed Ex.A13-Patta Pass Book. The Tribunal below did not place reliance on Ex.A13 and held that the petitioner failed to produce certificate from the Revenue Department to show that she is an agriculturist, but has taken the income of the injured as Rs.6,000/- per annum. As per Ex.A3-medical certificate, the injured is aged about 19 years. The factum of accident is not disputed. The appellant-petitioner, in order to prove the injuries, examined P.W.2-Dr.Dhoom Singh and P.W.3-Dr.R.Bhupathi Reddy and filed Exs.A3 to A12 and A14. Ex.A3 is medical certificate, Ex.A4 is discharge ticket, Ex.A5 is set of medical bills with prescriptions, Ex.A6 is Lab report, Ex.A7 is CT scan of brain, Ex.A8 is Photo (Positive) of the appellant, Ex.A9 is Xerox copy of RC, Ex.A10 is Xerox copy of insurance policy, Ex.A11 is X-ray films, Ex.A12 is Registration card and Ex.A14 is fresh X-ray marked by P.W.2. She further filed Exs.C1 to C3, case sheet marked by Commissioner, X-ray marked by Commissioner and case sheet of Pragathi Hospital marked by P.W.3, respectively. On behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company, Ex.B1-office copy of Insurance Policy is filed, which reads that the offending vehicle has valid insurance coverage on the date of the accident. As per the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, the appellant sustained fracture of shaft left femur and head injury and that she was operated to the left femur by application of rod. The same is evidenced by documentary evidence, Exs.C1 to C3. The appellant failed to produce disability certificate. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in assessing the disability of the injured is erroneous. However, while taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, coupled with the evidence of P.W.1-injured and the voluminous documentary evidence filed on behalf of the appellant in Exs.A3 to A12, A14 and Exs.C1 to C3, she sustained fracture of her left leg and head injury and she is having limping due to shortening of left leg bone by one inch. Though the petitioner is not able to prove that she is an agriculturist, the fact remains that she is a housewife and ultimately, the said limp due to fracture causes hindrance in her day-to-day life. Therefore, any amount of compensation would not equate the disability of the injured. Hence, by taking into consideration the disability of P.W.1, granting of Rs.50,000/- towards two grievous injuries is reasonable. The Tribunal below did not grant any compensation towards pain and suffering. Therefore, granting of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering is just and reasonable. Accordingly, the said sum is granted besides granting Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.1,000/- towards transport charges, in total, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.71,000/- {Rupees seventy one thousand only} {i.e., Rs.50,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.1,000/-}. With this modification, the MACMA is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (K.S.APPA RAO, J) 10th June 2011 RRB