THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.M.A.No.2014 of 2000 O R D E R: This appeal is filed by the claimant against the order dated 01.03.2000 passed in O.P.No.896 of 1997, on the file of the Chairman, MVACT-cum-District Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereas the petition was allowed granting compensation of Rs.30,000/-. The said claim was made by the claimant relating to an accident which occurred on 04.07.1997. It is alleged that he got down from the bus and while he was attempting to cross the road, a Scooter came and dashed against him, which was driven and owned by the 1st respondent and insured by the 2nd respondent. On account of the said accident, the claimant suffered two fractures of his left leg apart from other injuries. The present claim petition is filed on the ground that the claimant had to be hospitalised for a week and thereafter he was operated due to his fractures and later on review, he was advised to take C.T.Scan. However, the C.T.Scan is not available with the Government hospital, he was referred to a private hospital and ultimately nothing abnormal is noticed in the CT.Scan. However, his left leg, which had suffered two fractures had disabled him from carrying his avocation as a cooli. The Tribunal below, however found that though there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the 1st respondent, to the extent of the claim for compensation, there is no evidence in support of the claim for medical reimbursement, as no bills were produced by the claimant similarly with respect to loss of earnings also except the statement of PW.1 himself that he was a cooli earning Rs.1800/- per month. There was no evidence in support of the same. However, the Tribunal below awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medical reimbursement, another Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering and another Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has not seen the evidence on record, particularly the evidence of PW.2, who is Professor of Orthopaedic, who has examined the claimant and deposed about the injury suffered by the claimant. Learned counsel also submits that the assessment of damages made by the Court below is on a much lower side and the said conservative estimate resulted in, the claimant is not getting the just compensation. Learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company has vehemently opposed the claim. There is absolutely no evidence in support of any of the claims of the claimant. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal below was itself more benevolent and has granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- each on each of the three heads even in the absence of any evidence. Therefore, the appeal does not warrant any interference. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and I have examined the record of the court below. The evidence of PW.2, Professor of Orthopaedic Department, Osmania General Hospital was the doctor, who has treated and examined the claimant. He has stated in his evidence that the claimant suffered lacerated wound over right of forehead and contusion of right eye, apart from deforming and swelling of left leg and punctured wound. The claimant was treated as inpatient for a week and X-ray report shows fracture of both bones of left leg. He had left the hospital against medical advise on 1.7.1997, as is evident from case sheet Ex.A.8. The doctor further says that the clinical fractures are united, but there is a shortening of left leg by 1 C.M. The said evidence of PW.2 is not controverted by any cross-examination. Further, the said evidence of a specialised Medical Practitioner holding the description of a Professor in Orthopaedic Department must be given due weight Tribunal had not referred to the said evidence at all. No doubt, there is no disability certificate in the present case. However, the evidence of PW.2 clearly shows the extent of disability suffered by the claimant. The fact that the claimant had to face two fractures, his left leg, the pain and suffering as well as the loss of earnings is self- evident. The claimant, admittedly, was working as a cooli and even if we ignore his claim of earning at Rs.1800/- per month and presume that he was earning atleast Rs.1,000/- per month, he would have necessarily lost his earning for a period of minimum 6 to 8 months on account of the hospitalisation, medical treatment and the plate applied on his leg on account of the twin fractures, apart from shortening of his left leg 1 c.M. as per the evidence of PW.2. Therefore, considering all these circumstances, the award of the Tribunal below to the extent of granting Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings warrants a marginal enhancement. Under the said two heads, therefore, the compensation is enhanced by a further sum of Rs.10,000/- each. The overall compensation, therefore, shall stand enhanced by a further sum of Rs.20,000/- which shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim till the date of realisation. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. ____________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J 18th November, 2008 PNV