THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 5459 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against the order dated 25.09.2000 in O.P No. 1044 of 1998 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ I Additional District Judge, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. The claimant is the appellant herein who filed O.P before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in an accident. She pleaded that on 24.07.1998, at about 8.50 p.m. while herself and her brother-in-law were going on a motor cycle from I.S. Sadan to Santhoshnagar side, and when they reached near I.S.Sadan, a jeep bearing No.A.P.16 2157 came from Yadagiri talkies side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. As a result of the same, the appellant received multiple injuries. She was treated at Udai Clinic and spent an amount of Rs.60,000/- for medicines. Due to the said accident, she became permanently disabled and thus, claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The first respondent remained ex parte before the Court below. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed the counter denying all the material allegations. On the strength of the rival pleadings, the learned Judge framed necessary issues as to whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing No.AP 16 2157 by its driver and whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount. On behalf of the appellant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked, Ex.B-1 Insurance Policy was marked on behalf of the respondent – Insurance Company and Ex.C.1 and C.2 were marked by the Court. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal allowed the O.P in part and awarded Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. Being not satisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Judge has awarded only Rs.50,000/- as compensation as against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/- to the appellant which is on lower side and, therefore, the same needs to be enhanced. The learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Judge is quite reasonable and needs no interference. There is no dispute with regard to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. Insofar as awarding of compensation is concerned, the petitioner claims that she received injuries to her legs and fracture of both bones, got operated for both legs and she was in hospital for 30 days. In support of her claim, she filed Exs.A.3 to A.5-medical certificate, discharge certificate and O.P. Record. P.W.2, the doctor deposed that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital with compound fracture of both bones of right leg and also closed fracture of both bones of left leg. Since the appellant suffered grievous injuries, which are fractures to both legs, got operated for both legs and was in hospital for 30 days, and she took about six months to come back to normality, I feel that ends of justice would be met if the compensation is enhanced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, and from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- towards medicines. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.75,000/-. However, it is made clear that the enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:17.03.2011 va