THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.37 of 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant himself for enhancement of compensation. The brief facts are that the appellant sustained injuries in an accident occurred on 31-05-1997. He was traveling in a jeep bearing registration No.AIY 9500 from Kukatpally to Kothapet. When the jeep was at T.V. tower, Malakpet, the offending vehicle bearing registration No.AP 12 T 2735, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the jeep resulting in the sudden halt of the jeep. At that time, an ambassador car, coming behind the jeep, hit it and the appellant sustained injuries and the vehicle also suffered damages. The appellant/claimant, therefore, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The first respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle AP 12 T 2735 and the second respondent is the Insurance Company with which the vehicle was insured. The first respondent remained ex parte and the second respondent - Insurance Company resisted the claim by putting the appellant to the proof of fact relating to the driving licence of the respective vehicles. It also resisted the claim on the ground that the petition was bad for non-joinder of the insurer of the claimant’s jeep and the ambassador car. The tribunal formulated the following issues: (i) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation amount as prayed for? If so, to what amount and from whom? (iii) To what relief? The appellant besides examining himself as P.W.1, examined another person P.W.2, who was a Mechanic. The claimant exhibited documents Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the second respondent - Insurance Company, none was examined but Ex.B1 - Insurance Policy was exhibited. The appellant was a contractor as per Ex.A1. Ex.A3 is the outpatient card and the same disclosed that the claimant sustained simple injuries on his right shoulder, chin and neck. These injuries are simple in nature and the same did not result in any permanent disability. Taking into consideration Exs.A1 and A3, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards injuries and Rs.2,000/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.3,000/- towards pain and suffering and a further sum of Rs.3,000/- towards loss of earning. With reference to Issue No.1 i.e., negligence, since there is no appeal by the insurance company, the same need not be gone into. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned standing counsel for the second respondent. Having regard to the nature of injuries, the treatment for such injuries and the fact that the claimant could not work for some time on account of injuries, I am of the opinion that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are reasonable. As far as the compensation towards damages to the jeep, the Tribunal awarded Rs.8,000/-. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that an amount of Rs.35,000/- was spent for the repairs of the jeep. Rs.11,390/- was spent towards the repair charges and the remaining amount was spent for purchasing the spare parts. Hence, the appellant seeks Rs.27,000/- in addition to Rs.8,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. As regards the above contention, it is seen that the appellant examined the Mechanic as P.W.2 and filed Ex.A5. P.W.2 was a Mechanic, who repaired the jeep. P.W.2 stated that the jeep was in his work shop for 30 to 45 days for carrying out repairs an he carried out denting work, welding work, engine work, radiator, painting, lining and wiring work to the vehicle. He also stated that he charged Rs.11,390/- towards repair charges and issued the first bill Ex.A5. It may also be seen that under the same Ex.A5 there is a second bill containing the particulars of the spare parts purchased by the appellant. The second bill shows that the appellant spent Rs.22,382/- for purchasing the spare parts. It may be seen that this second bill was not noticed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal proceeded on the assumption that Ex.A5 contained only one bill as regards the repairing charges of Rs.11,390/-. Since the second bill, which is part of Ex.A5, is the amount actually spent by the appellant, I am of the view that he is entitled for the amount contained in the said part of Ex.A5 for a sum of Rs.22,382/-. It is true that the Tribunal did not rely upon Ex.A4, which is the report of the assessor, but as mentioned earlier the second bill contained in Ex.A5 can be taken into consideration since it reflected the actual amount spent for purchasing the spare parts and in addition to the fact that the vehicle was actually repaired by the Mechanic P.W.2. Further, as reflected in the first bill of Ex.A5, an amount of Rs.11,390/- was incurred towards the repair and the Tribunal has not assigned any reason for not accepting the first bill of Ex.A5. I am, therefore, inclined to award the differential amount of Rs.3,390/- and Rs.22,382/-, which was actually incurred as expenditure by the appellant. The award in O.P.No.773 of 1997, dated 19-06-2000 on the file of the Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is modified and in addition to the award already made a sum of Rs.25,772/- is awarded in favour of the appellant with interest at 6% from the date of appeal till the date of payment. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 31st December, 2009. skmr