THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009. C.M.A.No. 3399 of 2000 Between: K.Suresh Kumar. …….Appellant vs. Ayyaswamy and another. …….Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. C.M.A.No. 3399 of 2000 JUDGEMENT: Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent No.2 though notice is served on him. Service of notice on R.1 is not necessary since he was set ex parte before the Tribunal itself. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the Award dt. 27.6.2000 in MVOP.No. 920 of 1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool granting compensation of Rs. 5,000/- as against the claim of compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the appellant, who is the injured/claimant. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that though the appellant adduced convincing evidence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not proportionate to the injuries sustained by him and it deserves to be enhanced. The appellant himself was examined as Pw.1 who deposed that he sustained multiple injuries and that he was treated in Government Hospital, Kurnool for more than three months. He filed Ex:A.3 O.P. chit which clearly indicates that he was treated in Government Hospital, Kurnool for more than a month. He also filed Ex:A.4 medical bills which show that he had spent a sum of Rs. 458.60 paisa towards medicines. However, the appellant did not examine the doctor who treated him, but he filed Ex:A.2 the certified copy of wound certificate which show that the appellant sustained ‘Y’ shaped lacerated wound on the left parietal region with avulsion of scalp, bone exposed and a lacerated wound on the right ankle. Even in the absence of the evidence of doctor, basing on Ex:A.2 compensation can be granted. In the wound certificate Ex:A.2 the injuries are shown to be simple in nature. Even though the appellant was treated in the Government Hospital, Ex:A.4 shows that he purchased some medicines. Therefore, considering the period of treatment, which he had undergone, a reasonable amount can be granted to the appellant for medical expenses and extra nourishment. This apart, a reasonable sum can be granted to the appellant towards pain and suffering. The amount of compensation granted at Rs. 5,000/- by the Tribunal is very low and the same deserves to be enhanced in this appeal. An amount of Rs. 8,000/- can be grated for the injuries sustained by the appellant, an amount of Rs. 3000/- can be granted towards medical expenses and extra nourishment and an amount of Rs. 2,000/- can be granted towards pain and suffering. In all the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 13,000/-. Another aspect, which requires to be mentioned before disposing of this appeal is that the Tribunal below considering the appellant to be a gratuitous passenger held that the 2nd respondent insurance company is liable to pay compensation, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company vs. Satpal Singh (AIR 2000 S.C. 235). But subsequent to the decision referred to above, the Supreme Court over-ruled the above decision and held that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to gratuitous passengers. Therefore, the 2nd respondent-insurance company is exonerated from paying the compensation and the 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay compensation to the appellant. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 13,000/-. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J. 26.11.2009. Krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. C.M.A.No. 3399 of 2000 Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009.