THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A.No.2814 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 07.03.2001 in O.P.No.82 of 1999 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present appeal is filed by the claimants in the O.P., learned counsel for the appellants mainly urged that the Tribunal, while awarding compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, failed to consider the gravity of the injuries and suffering of the deceased and any amount of compensation granted on that score will not compensate the suffering of the deceased. He further urged that the Tribunal failed to grant funeral expenses, for which the claimants are entitled. He also further urged that the Tribunal failed to grant any compensation towards the transportation charges. Now, the point for consideration is whether the judgment of the Tribunal in granting compensation of Rs.1,14,000/- against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- is sustainable. Neither the counsel for the appellants nor the respondent disputed the accident and also the liability of the respondents for payment of compensation. Admittedly, the 1st appellant is the mother of the deceased. The deceased was unmarried at the time of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal had taken the age of the mother in applying the multiplier and awarded the compensation and the same was not disputed in this appeal. It is contended that the deceased was working as Collection Agent and was getting an income of Rs.2,000/- per month, but salary certificate was not filed into Court to show his earnings. However, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum. As seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. Admittedly, the deceased while undergoing treatment succumbed to injuries. It is not in dispute that the injuries sustained by the deceased are grievous in nature. In a case of this nature, granting of any compensation will not compensate the suffering of the injured. However, granting of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering against the amount of Rs.5,000/- granted by the Tribunal on that score would be just and reasonable. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.5,000/- granted by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. Further, the Tribunal also failed to grant funeral expenses of Rs.2,000/-, to the claimants. In my considered view, the said amount shall be granted to the claimants and is accordingly granted. During the course of argument, the counsel for the appellants urged that the deceased in the first instance met with accident at Amrabad village new bus stand, Mahabubnagar District and from there he was shifted to Osmania hospital, Hyderabad, for which the claimants incurred expenditure towards transportation charges. But, the Tribunal did not allow the said claim on the ground that no documentary evidence was adduced. However, the fact remains that injured was shifted from Amrabad to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Therefore, in any view of the matter, some incidental expenses might have been incurred by the family members of the deceased. On that score, granting of Rs.2,000/- is just and reasonable. Accordingly, the amount of compensation granted under the head ‘pain and suffering’ is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/-, and an amount of Rs.2,000/- each towards funeral expenses and transport charges is also granted to the appellants. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.1,28,000/-, to which the appellants are entitled to. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. With the above enhancement and modification, the appeal is allowed. No costs. __________________ K.S.APPA RAO,J 3rd March,2011 PNV