HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2119 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.12 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Guntur, questioning the quantum of compensation. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, he is said to have received injuries in a motor accident. On 08.04.1999 at about 5.00 P.M., while the petitioner was proceeding on a cycle, the lorry bearing No.AP 7T 2435 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which, he suffered injuries and spent money for treatment and also suffered disability. The 1st respondent is owner of the vehicle, and the 2nd respondent is the Insurance Company and both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and putting the petitioner to strict proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, nature of injuries received by the petitioner and also the expenditure incurred by him. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.61,700/-. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the lower Tribunal having found that the petitioner is a student and has received injuries in a motor accident did not properly assess the compensation. The Insurance Company does not dispute about the nature of award. The compensation claimed by the claimant is Rs.1,30,000/-. As can be seen from the award of the lower Tribunal, PWs.2 and 3 did not treat the petitioner and he was treated by PW.4. Their evidence also goes to show that Ex.X1 case sheet was not the original case sheet. The evidence of PW.1 goes to show that he got a grievous injury on his right leg from joint to knee. PW.4 is Orthopaedic Surgeon, who claims to have treated the petitioner for the injury sustained by him in a motor accident, his evidence shows that there was a fracture on the right leg from middle of thigh to lower of the leg and loss of skin and debridement was also said to have done. His opinion clearly goes to show that there is no functional disability but it may cause some debridement. There is also no shortening of the leg. 4. The lower Tribunal by taking into consideration the above evidence has granted compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and though there is no disability opined by the doctor towards debridement a sum of Rs.15,000/- was granted and also granted the medical expenses basing on Exs.A.4 and A.5 bills. The lower Tribunal has therefore rightly assessed the evidence. But, however, taking into consideration the age of the petitioner and the nature of sufferings, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.65,000/- instead of Rs.61,700/-. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:20.09.2011 INL