HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.3618 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P.No.33 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, questioning the quantum of compensation. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, on 09.07.1999 at about 10.30 P.M., when the petitioner was proceeding on his TVS moped, jeep bearing No.AP 03A 7866 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the TVS, as a result of which, the petitioner fell down and received injuries. He claims to have sustained multiple injuries and suffered disability. Originally, the compensation was claimed at Rs.2,20,000/-. But, subsequently it was enhanced to Rs.3,70,000/-. The 1st respondent is said to be the owner of the vehicle and the 2nd respondent is Insurance Company, which has filed the counter putting the petitioner to strict proof of the rashness and negligence of the driver of the jeep and nature of injuries received by the petitioner, nature of treatment and also the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner. After considering the evidence on record the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.73,500/-. 3. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? 4. POINT: So far as the nature of incident and the petitioner received injuries in motor accident is concerned, there is not of much dispute and the award was not challenged by the Insurance Company. As can be seen from the order of the lower Tribunal in para No.11, the Tribunal has accepted the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner has received fracture of his right hip and also multiple simple abrasions over his right knee due to the incident. So far as the medical expenses is concerned, the Tribunal has opined that when the Court takes into consideration the document an amount of Rs.31,956/- was incurred by the petitioner towards his treatment. But, however, while passing the award only Rs.20,000/- was granted towards the medical expenses. As rightly found by the lower Tribunal the evidence of PW.2 about the disability of 35% cannot be taken into consideration as he treated the petitioner and has given opinion two years after the alleged incident. But, the fact remains that the injury to the hip causes temporary partial disability causing loss of earnings to the petitioner. Evidently, the petitioner is said to have been treated at Bangalore and consequently, the transport expenses were also to be taken into consideration. But, however, the Tribunal has not granted the said amount. 5. Therefore, taking into consideration all the above facts, I feel the Tribunal has not included the medical expenses, which were accepted to be correct and also the transport charges and I feel the ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- is granted. The enhanced amount shall carry an interest of 6.5%. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:13.12.2011 INL