THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.1996 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 O.P.No.649/1993, dated 11.07.1997. 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts are as follows: On 28.01.1992 at about 11.30 a.m. while the petitioner was traveling in lorry bearing No.AP.7U 1086 along with load of paddy bags from Pedakurapadu village to Sattenapalli, near Pedamakkena village, the driver of the lorry drove it in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and the lorry turned turtle, as a result, the petitioner received injuries to his right hand. Immediately, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur. A case in Cr.No.10 of 1992 was registered for the accident. The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.55,000/- contending that he was earning Rs.35/- to Rs.40/- per day as a cooli, aged about 26 years. The first respondent remained exparte and the second respondent insurance company filed its counter denying the petition averments. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry No.A.P.7U.1086 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount? 3. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 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 granted compensation of Rs.14,000/-. Aggrieved by the above quantum, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner-claimant. 6. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to enhance the compensation? 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner contended that the petitioner suffered some permanent disability due to accident and his right hand was fractured above the elbow and he is not able to attend his work as earlier as coolly and he spent substantial amount towards medicines and he took treatment as inpatient in Government Hospital from 28.01.1992 to 19.02.1992 and later also he took treatment in a private hospital. During the period of treatment, he spent substantial amount for medicines, but meager amount was granted by the court below. 8. The trial Court relying on Ex.A2, the wound certificate issued by the doctor who treated the petitioner, which shows that the petitioner suffered only one grievous injury and two simple injuries, and the disability suffered by the petitioner is only 15%, granted compensation of Rs.7000/- towards permanent and partial disability, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of earning capacity and Rs.2,000/- towards pain and suffering. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and on perusing the impugned judgment, I am inclined to grant another amount of Rs.16,000/- towards additional compensation. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Court below is enhanced from Rs.14,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. 10. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is partly allowed. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation shall be at 6% per annum. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 30th December 2010, Rns