HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY M.A.C.M.A. No.881 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.114 of 2001 vide order dated 15-12-2004 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District, claimant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The owner of the steering autorickshaw bearing No.AP23 – T – 5628 involved in the accident and its insurer are respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 27-02-2000 at about 10-30 am, while he was going in the steering autorickshaw bearing No.AP23 – T – 5628 belonging to respondent No.1 from Tupran to Masaipet side, as the driver of the autorickshaw drove it in a rash and negligent manner and high speed, autorickshaw turned turtle, as a result, claimant sustained grievous injuries. A case in Crime No.33 of 2000 was registered by the Tupran Police Station against the driver of the autorickshaw for the offence under Section 337 IPC and investigated into. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for treatment. He sustained fracture of right leg and spent huge amount for treatment. He was aged about 37 years and due to fracture of right leg, he was unable to attend to his duties and he lost his earning capacity. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1, owner of the autorickshaw, remained ex parte. 6. Respondent No.2, insurer of the above autorickshaw, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant and its liability for payment of compensation. 7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: i) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of auto bearing No.AP-23T- 5628. ii) Whether the vehicle involved in the accident is insured with the 2nd respondent? iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount, against whom? iv) To what relief?” 8. To prove his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and the doctor, who treated him, as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the insurance company, except marking a copy of the insurance policy of the offending autorickshaw as Ex.B-1, no oral evidence was adduced. 9. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.24,000/- to the claimant fixing the liability on both the respondents for payment of compensation jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 10. Since neither of the respondents preferred any appeal or cross-objections, there is no need to decide the question of proving the accident and their liability for payment of compensation to the claimant. 11. Hence, now the only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is inadequate ? 12. As rightly held by the Tribunal, evidence of PW.1 coupled with the evidence of PW.2, the doctor who treated the claimant, and Ex.A-3 MLC, establishes that claimant sustained a fracture and four simple injuries i.e., fracture of his right leg apart from swelling, pain, tenderness of right thigh, abrasion of 9 x 3 cms. on right forearm, laceration of 4 x 2 x 1 cms. Above the right eyebrow, abrasion on the right side of the chin and avulsion injury of scalp. Further, evidence of PW.2 is that due to the fracture to leg, claimant sustained disability of 45% and to that effect he also issued Ex.A-4 disability certificate. In the circumstances, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the fracture and Rs.1,000/- each for four simple injuries, totalling to Rs.24,000/-. 13. However, Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards pain and suffering, which he must have experienced due to the fracture of right leg, and also loss of income during the treatment period, during which time he must have been out of work for at least two months. Hence, I am inclined to award another Rs.16,000/- (Rupees sixteen thousand only) to the claimant which would meet the ends of justice and is accordingly awarded. 14. Thus, the compensation of Rs.24,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only). The rate of interest on the enhanced compensation shall be at 6% per annum from the date of O.P. till realization. Claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation along with interest soon after its deposit. 15. With the above enhancement in quantum of compensation and directions, the appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 3, 2010. PV