IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH AT HYDERABAD. Thursday, December 23, 2010 Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy C.M.A.No. 3876 of 2003 Between: Vellingala Kanna Rao ..Appellant And Veligetla Rama Rao and another ..Respondents PSR, J. C.M.A.No. 3876 of 2003 Judgment This appeal is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada in M.V.O.P.No. 141 of 1999. The petitioner is the appellant herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein would be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court. 2. The facts of the case are that - on 29.12.1997 the petitioner along with his friend went to cinema in Kalpana theatre, Kakinada; on their return, when they reached Kumbabhishekam temple, Beach Road, lorry bearing registration No.APD-5855 driven by the deceased-driver stopped by the side of the petitioner and his friend and the deceased-driver requested them to unload the load, offering to pay Rs.100-00 to each. After some time, the petitioner went into the cabin and requested to drive the lorry slowly, but the driver drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner with high-speed and dashed the lorry to a stationed bus, on account of which the lorry stepped down on the left side, causing injuries to the petitioner and his friend. The petitioner was aged 30 years. He was earning Rs.3000-00 per month by doing loading and unloading work. In all he claimed compensation of Rs.1.00 Lakh. 3. The first respondent remained ex parte. The second respondent-insurance company filed its counter denying the averments of the petition. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial: 1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing registration No.APD-5855? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation amount, and if so to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 5. In support of his case, the petitioner examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Ex A-1 – Copy of the FIR and Ex A-2 the case sheet with X-Ray. On behalf of the respondent RW-1 was examined and copy of the policy was married as Ex B-1. 6. On a consideration of the above material placed before it, the tribunal below awarded compensation of Rs.29,000-00 with interest @ 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, the petitioner filed this appeal. 7. PW-2 the Medical Officer, who examined the petitioner found the following injuries: 1) Fracture of both bones of right leg; 2) Lacerated injury over left hand; and 3) Lacerated injury over fore head. Thus, the petitioner sustained one grievous injury and two simple injuries. The petitioner did not file any disability certificate. Thus taking into consideration the sufferance under gone by the petitioner and the amount spent for medicines etc., the lower tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.29,000-00. 8. Now the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was out of employment for five months. He was aged thirty yeas and due to the fracture to right leg he is not in a position to attend to cooli work, as was attended by him earlier. 9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the earning capacity, the period of treatment under gone and money spent, this court considers it just and necessary to enhance the compensation by anther Rs.11,000-00, making the compensation awarded by the court below at Rs.40,000-00. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.40,000- 00. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The petitioner is entitled to 6% interest on the enhanced compensation. He is also entitled to proportionate costs. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Dated:23—12—2010. *BVS