THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.2467 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, in O.P.No.37/2000. Petitioner-claimant is the appellant herein. 2. Heard. 3. The case of the appellant-claimant is that on 23.08.1999 at about 10.30 p.m. while he was going on his motor cycle from Secunderabad towards Nampally, near flyover opposite to Secretariat, the bus bearing No.AP 10Z 6543 tried to overtake him from his left and in that process, dashed him. On account of which he fell down and received grievous injuries, such as fracture of left leg, injuries on head, right hand, elbow and other parts of the body. He took treatment at CDR Hospital and other hospitals. He claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- contending that he is an advocate earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Respondent filed counter denying the petition allegations. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 10Z 6543 by its driver? 2. What is the ‘just’ amount that can be awarded as compensation and against whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner-claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, of whom, P.W.1 is the petitioner and P.W.2 is the medical officer and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. Considering the material on record, the court below awarded compensation of Rs.67,500/-. Out of which, Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- towards medicines and treatment, Rs.7,500/- towards past loss and Rs.15,000/- towards present value of the future loss. Aggrieved by the above quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed. 4. Now, the only question that arises for consideration is, whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the court below is inappropriate? 5. The claimant claimed compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs for the injuries he suffered in the accident, on account of which, even according to him, he took treatment in CDR hospital and other hospitals. But, no authentic evidence is on record to show that for how many days he underwent treatment and for what period he was bedridden. Apart from that as rightly held by the court below most of the medical bills produced by the petitioner are not supported by any prescriptions. As there is no material on record to show that for how many days he was under treatment, it is not possible to decide that he lost substantial income on account of the accident. However, on account of the accident he might have suffered pain and might have suffered inconvenience, and he must have suffered some temporary discomfort. The medical evidence revealed that he sustained deep injury on the left leg exposing the fractured bone outside. P.W.2 the medical officer, is not the doctor who treated the petitioner. The court below has not granted any compensation towards transport charges, extra nourishment and future earning capacity etc. In the circumstances, another amount of Rs.20,000/- can be granted under all heads. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.67,500/- to Rs.87,500/-. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation is at 6% per annum. 6. Accordingly, C.M.A. is partly allowed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 30th November 2010, Rns