THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.1198 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the petitioner- claimant against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur in M.V.O.P.No.919 of 1999 dated 24.06.2002. Heard. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: On 05.07.1996 at about 10.45 p.m. while the petitioner was driving the lorry bearing no.AP 27U 1275 proceeding from Tadepalli to Vijayawada, the driver of the lorry bearing No.AIQ 639 coming from opposite direction dashed his lorry, near Kolanukonda bridge, Tadepalli Mandal. On account of the accident, the petitioner suffered fracture of condyle of right tibia. He was immediately shifted to University General Hospital, Vijayawada. A case in Crime No.126 of 1996 was registered. He was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. On account of the accident, his right knee and ankle joint movements were badly restricted and he suffered 100% disability. He spent Rs.10,000/- for his treatment. He is 40 years old. He claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. First respondent remained exparte and second respondent filed counter denying the allegations. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AIQ 639 by its driver or not? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On the basis of the material on record, the court below awarded compensation of Rs.58,000/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner is that the petitioner suffered injury at the joint of knee on account of which, the petitioner’s knee developed stiffness causing permanent disability on account of which he cannot drive vehicle. Even the medical evidence shows that the disability was only 20%, it cannot be said that on account of 20% disability allegedly suffered, the petitioner would not be in a position to drive a vehicle. The compensation of Rs.58,000/- granted in the year 2002 for the accident that occurred in 1999 cannot be said to be on lower side. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has suffered injury immediately below the knee that might cause problems and some permanent disability, the petitioner can be awarded another amount of Rs.20,000/-. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to get total compensation of Rs.78,000/- instead of Rs.58,000/-. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.58,000/- to Rs.78,000/-. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation is at 6% per annum. No order as to costs. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Date: 24.11.2010 Rns