THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2731 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order dated 21.06.2004 in O.P.No.47 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Nalgonda questioning the quantum of compensation. The claimant made a claim for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries received by her in a motor accident on 12.08.1999 when the petitioner along with other family members were traveling in a jeep bearing No.APQ 1738 to go to Cheerala and when the jeep reached Kanchikacherla cheruvu, the lorry bearing No.AHF 2579 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against it, as a result of which, the petitioner received multiple injuries and she was said to be in hospital and she suffered loss of vision. The 1st respondent-owner and the 2nd respondent-insurance company are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent filed counter denying the petition averments, nature of the accident, nature of injuries and its liability. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-8, granted a compensation of Rs.18,578/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT: As can be seen from the material evidence on record, there is no dispute about the nature of the incident and cause of injuries to the petitioner. As can be seen from Ex.A-3 wound certificate, there are two injuries, one is over the left frontal region and another one is on black left eye and there is no bone injury and it was opined as simple. However, the petitioner examined P.W.2 on commission and according to him, the vision of the petitioner has lost and damage to the left eye and optic nerve. The lower Tribunal has accepted this version and an amount of Rs.15,000/- was granted for the pain and suffering. However, only a sum of Rs.3,578/- was granted under the head of treatment and medicines. Evidently, the petitioner is a student and she has admittedly treated at Vijayawada and also for the eye injury. The evidence of P.W.2 is accepted by the lower Tribunal. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that apart from the pain and suffering, there is temporary disability to the petitioner and the medical expenses should have incurred is not minimal apart from the transport charges. Therefore, it is to be held that the order of the lower Tribunal in determining the compensation is not proper and I feel the ends of justice would meet, if an amount of Rs.50,000/- is granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on all counts. Accordingly, the point is answered. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 11-11-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2731 of 2011 DATE: 11-11-2011 MR