HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No. 2839 of 2002 Date: 29-10-2010 Between R. Damodhar Reddy ……….. Petitioner and The United India Insurance Co. Ltd and another …….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No. 2839 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred by the claimant against the award, dated 03- 06-2002 passed in O.P.No.1323 of 1998 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15-05-1998 at about 10- 30 PM, while the appellant-claimant was proceeding as pillion rider on a scooter bearing No.AP 11B 8939 at Champapet bus stop on the extreme left, an auto bearing No.AP 28T 4411 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter, on account of which the appellant-claimant suffered injuries including fracture. A case in Crime No.141 of 1998 was registered by Saidabad Police. The appellant-claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. 3. The second respondent-insurance company filed counter denying the allegations made by the appellant-claimant in the petition. 4. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioner injured in accident occurred on 15-5-1998 at 10-30 P.M., near Champapet bus stop in between Hyderabad to Sagar road, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Auto bearing No.A.P. 28 T. 4411? 2. Whether the petitioner suffered any permanent disability in the accident? 3. Whether the crime vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent covering the risk? 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 5. To what relief? 5. To prove his case, the appellant-claimant himself was examined as PW-1, and PW-2, the doctor, who treated the appellant- claimant subsequent to the accident, was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 and X-1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined, however, Ex.B-1, copy of the insurance policy, was marked. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the material available on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and on account of the same, the appellant-claimant suffered fracture and accordingly, awarded the compensation of Rs.30,000/-. 7. Heard both the learned counsel. 8. The point arises for consideration is whether the appellant- claimant is entitled for any higher compensation? 9. There is no dispute about the occurrence of the accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and the petitioner suffering fracture. 10. Ex.A-2 is the discharge summary issued by Yashoda Hospital. PW-2 is the doctor, who examined the appellant-claimant. His evidence is that PW-1 was admitted in Medicare Hospital on 09-08-1998 at about 11-30 AM with an old injury i.e., fracture of both bones, tibia and fibula. A surgery was performed by fixing plating to the left tibia. He was inpatient till 20-08-1998 i.e., about 11 days. The appellant-claimant requires another operation for removing of steel plating, which costs Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/-, and that he is having stiffness of ankle joint due to which he cannot walk fast and run. He cannot squat and sit for hours and cannot carry much weight. Thus he suffers partial and permanent functional disability of 30%. 11. The Tribunal, accepting the above evidence, awarded Rs.5,000/- towards medical treatment and Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering holding that the appellant-claimant paid Rs.2,487/- at Yashodha Hospital towards medical bills. But, nothing is granted towards medical treatment underwent by the appellant-claimant at Medicare Hospital, where the surgery was performed to him, and also nothing is granted towards future treatment i.e., for removal of steel plating. When the appellant- claimant suffered stiffness of the ankle, due to which he cannot squat, walk fast and run, it has to be treated as substantial disability causing pain and suffering on permanent basis, on account of which there is possibility of not only his suffering, but also his earnings capacity coming down. 12. Considering the circumstances, as proper amount was not granted towards medical treatment, loss of amenities and loss of earnings, I am inclined to grant another Rs.30,000/- to the appellant-claimant in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part enhancing the compensation to Rs.60,000/-. The appellant-claimant is entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization for the enhanced amount. No order as to costs. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J Date: 29-10-2010 YCR