THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.4527 of 2003 BETWEEN: K.Jal Reddy .. Petitioner And The A.P.S.R.T.C. and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.4527 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the injured-claimant assailing the order dated 04.08.2003 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.1389 of 2003. 2. The appellant received grievous injuries on 28.04.2001 at about 20.30 hours in a motor vehicle accident wherein the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10Z 4425 plying from Nalgonda to Hyderabad was involved. Ultimately, the appellant’s right leg above the knee and the left leg were amputated and the scrotum was seriously injured, it was operated and positioned. The appellant made a total claim of Rs.8 lakhs as compensation, against which the Tribunal below granted an amount of Rs.1,95,000/-. The issue as to the involvement of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP10Z 4425, that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus was decided in favour of the appellant by the learned trial Court and that became final. The present appeal is only with regard to the quantum of compensation. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent- APSRTC. 4. The evidence of PW.4- Dr.C.Kamraj shows that the appellant was admitted in Kamineni Hospital on 28.04.2001 and he sustained crush injury to the left foot and undisplaced fracture of lower end of left Tibia and Fibula and comminuted fracture of right Tibial condyle with fracture, both bones lower third of the right leg. The evidence further discloses that he also sustained traumatic evisceration of the right testis. Emergency surgeries were conducted. The right testis was positioned and scrotum was sutured. Ultimately, the above knee amputation of the right leg and fore-foot amputation of left leg were done. PW.4 assessed the disability at 80%, which is permanent in nature. According to PW.4, the appellant is not able to run, walk or squat on the ground and he is suffering from permanent disability and a permanent attendant is required throughout his life and he experiences the sever pain and he cannot personally attend to his routine work. 5. PW.2-T.Srinivas, a medical attendant of the petitioner deposed that he attended on the petitioner from 01.07.2001 to May, 2002 on a monthly salary of Rs.1,500/- and totally he was paid an amount of Rs.16,500/- by the appellant. Ex.A.15 are the 11 receipts signed by the appellant. 6. The evidence of Smt. R.Gomathi, the Accountant in Kachiguda Head Post Office, Hyderabad discloses that the appellant has been working as a Postal Assistant in the Department since 01.01.1975 and he was drawing salary of Rs.7,600/-. On the date of accident, he was working at Post Office, Nalgonda and now he is working at Kachiguda and his present salary is Rs.8,525/-. She further stated that the appellant was on medical leave from 30.04.2001 to 08.01.2002 and 150 days half pay leave was converted into commuted medical leave and full salary was paid to him. She further stated that he lost earned leave of 179 days. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable or whether it requires any enhancement? 8. The learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,00,00/- towards permanent disability and for other injuries, granted an amount of Rs.40,000/- which requires no interference in this appeal. The amount of Rs.25,000/- towards life long attendant allowance being reasonable, also requires no interference. For pain and suffering, the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.5,000/- which being very low, is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- in this appeal and an amount of Rs.10,000/- granted towards attendant charges during the period of hospitalization being reasonable, it requires no interference. Since the petitioner lost only earned leave, the amount of Rs.9,000/- granted towards loss of income also does not require any interference. Apart from this amount, the learned Tribunal ought to have granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and transportation. The Tribunal granted only an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards artificial limb, which being very low, is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- in this appeal. Instead of Rs.1500/- towards medical expenses, an amount of Rs.20,000/- could have been reasonably granted by the Tribunal below. The petitioner is therefore, entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,14,000/-. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed granting total compensation of Rs.3,14,000/- to the appellant. The enhancement would be Rs.1,19,000/- (Rs.3,14,000/- minus Rs.1,95,000/-). The appellant is entitled for interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization on the enhanced amount of compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date: 14.09.2010 kvrm THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.4527 of 2003 DATED 14.09.2010