THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2528 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 28.06.2005, in M.V.O.P.No.1962 of 2003 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the said claim application filed by the appellant herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Appellant herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 31.07.2003. 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle remained ex parte and 2nd respondent-insurer filed counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 4. During enquiry before the Tribunal, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B.1-copy of the policy was marked on behalf of the respondents. Ex.X1 is marked. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the TATA Indica car bearing No.31-R-5335 by its driver. The said finding is not challenged by way of any appeal by the insurer. The Tribunal however held that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.38,000/-. Accordingly, award was passed for the said amount with interest @ 7.5% p.a. Not satisfied with the award, claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement. 6. The medical evidence on record established that the claimant suffered grievous injury i.e. fracture of both bones of right leg and the injury has led to 25% permanent disability. Claimant has examined P.Ws.2 and 3, the doctors who treated him and assessed the disability and issued certificate of disability under Ex.A12. He also filed Ex.A3-wound certificate and Exs.A5-bunch of medical bills, Ex.A6-bunch of X-rays; Ex.A7-bunch of transport bills and Ex.A10-discharge summary issued by Simhagiri hospital and also produced case sheet-Ex.X1, which all go to establish the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the treatment undergone by him as inpatient in the hospital. As the claimant sustained multiple fracture injuries of both bones, he is held entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering @ Rs.5000/- for each of the two injuries. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment and medicines. Claimant has produced bunch of medical bills showing expenditure of Rs.25,729.32 ps. The Tribunal ought to have awarded the said amount towards medical expenses as the expenditure is borne out by Ex.A5-bunch of medical bills. The claimant is therefore held entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses. The amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards extra nourishment and medicines is treated as compensation for extra nourishment and attendant charges. The claimant produced transport bills- Ex.A7 showing an expenditure of Rs.26,000/- towards transport charges. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.5000/- in that regard. The claimant has produced documentary evidence showing expenditure towards transport charges. The Tribunal ought to have allowed the same notwithstanding with the fact that none connected with the transport company is examined having regard to the fact that the claim is made under the beneficial piece of legislation and strict rules of evidence cannot be pressed into service while adjudicating such claims. The claimant is therefore entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards transport charges. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards permanent disability. As per the evidence of P.W.2, the fracture injury has healed. Though it is stated that the injury has resulted in permanent disability to the extent of 25%, it is not the case of the claimant that it has affected his loss of earning capacity. The claimant is stated to be working as a Manager in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant employees’ Cooperative Credit Society on a salary of Rs.1923/- per month and he produced salary certificate-Ex.A8. Admittedly, the claimant has rejoined duty and is continuing the employment. Hence, there is no loss of earning capacity on account of the permanent disability. The Tribunal has therefore rightly awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards disability which has to be treated as compensation for loss of maintenance. However, having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by him and the fact that he was hospitalized for a couple of weeks, it is considered that the claimant needs to be awarded some amount towards loss of past earnings and he is held entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- in that regard. Though the claimant has claimed Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses, there is nothing on record to show that he needs to undergo any future surgery and on the other hand, the medical evidence shows that the fracture injury has healed. In the circumstances, the claimant is held entitled for total compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest @ 7.5% on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal and 6% on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 7. In the result, appeal is allowed accordingly. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 31st October, 2011 Tsy