THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.291 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred aggrieved by the order and decree dated 25.06.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.814 of 1998 on the file of the Chairman – Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. The appellant herein is the petitioner in O.P.No.400 of 2005. He filed petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident. The Tribunal below while evaluating the evidence adduced by the petitioner, awarded an amount of Rs.34,500/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said order, the present C.M.A. is filed. Counsel appearing for the appellant mainly urged that the award passed by the Tribunal below is very meager though the petitioner sustained 40% disability and hence requested for enhancing the compensation. Now, the point for consideration is Whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? It is averred in the petition in O.P.400 of 2005 that on 22.02.2005 at about 7.30p.m. while the injured petitioner traveling in an auto bearing No.AP24V 5912 from Hailya and when the said auto reached near Hazarigudem, another auto bearing registration No.AP 24 V 2758 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and hit the auto in which the petitioner is traveling, resulting which he sustained multiple injuries. In proof of the accident, the injured himself examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A7. The factum of accident was not disputed. Ex.B1 is the policy relating to the offending vehicle in question and that the offending vehicle is having valid insurance coverage on the date of accident. The point whether the compensation granted by the lower Court is reasonable. According to P.W.1, he sustained fracture of right femur, fracture of knee joint besides some other injuries all over the body. In proof of the injuries, he also examined P.W.2 Dr.I.Kameswar, whose evidence is that he is Orthopaedic Surgeon in Government Hospital, Nalgonda and he examined P.W.1 and he deposed that the petitioner was admitted in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda on 23.02.2005 and he found laceration of 3 X 1 cm on the right knee joint and X.ray shows fracture femur and the nature of injury was grievous. In proof of the same, he issued Ex.A2 medical certificate. It is also the evidence of P.W.1 that he had taken follow up treatment in I.Ramulu Ortho Clinic for a period of six months. According to P.W.1, he was given disability certificate assessing disability to 40% and that there is shortening of 1½” right lower limb. But as seen from the impugned order, the doctor who issued the disability certificate was not examined and petitioner also failed to adduce any evidence regarding his income. As the petitioner failed to adduce evidence on the aforesaid two counts, the Tribunal below has not considered the disability and the earnings of the petitioner. However, the tribunal below assessed the income of the injured as Rs.1500/- per month and granted Rs.4,500/- towards loss of income for three months. Admittedly, as seen from the cause title, the injured is aged about 43 years and occupation Oil Engine Mechanic, resident of Chanduru. While taking into consideration his age, instead of fixing his income as Rs.1500/- this court is of the view that fixing his income at Rs.2000/- per month is just and reasonable. Accordingly, the said sum is granted. In total, the loss of income for three months comes to Rs.6,000/- against Rs.4,500/- granted by the Tribunal below. It is an admitted fact that petitioner sustained grievous injury and the disability was estimated at 40%. But, the tribunal below without taking into consideration the gravity of the injuries granted only Rs.20,000/-. Therefore, granting of Rs.30,000/- towards the said grievous injury is just and reasonable in the setout facts and circumstances of the case. Further, as per Ex.A4, the bunch of medical bills and estimation etc., the petitioner claimed Rs.80,000/- But, whereas the tribunal below granted only Rs.10,000/-. In my view the aforesaid amount is meager and accordingly, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is granted on that score. The tribunal below failed to grant compensation towards pain and suffering. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering. In total, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,46,500/-. With the above modification, the C.M.A. is allowed in part. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation is at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. No costs. _______________ K.S.APPA RAO,J Dt.15.04.2011 Rns THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A.No.291 of 2008 Dt. 15.04.2011 Rns