IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH AT HYDERABAD. Dated: 21---10---2010 Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy M.A.C.M.A.No. 48 of 2006 Between: Sathaiah ..appellant And Mohd. Yousuf and others ..Respondents PSR, J. M.A.C.M.A.No. 48 of 2006 Judgment This appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Adilabad in O.P.No. 605 of 2001. The petitioner is the appellant. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein would be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court. 2. The facts of the case are that on 4-11-2000 at about 7.00 PM, while the petitioner along with others was proceeding in jeep bearing registration No.MH-22-7354 from Laxettipet to Mancherial and when the said jeep reached Dubbanapalli, lorry bearing registration No.AAP-2853 came in opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, in high speed and dashed the jeep in which the petitioner was traveling. On account of the collision the jeep in which the petitioner was traveling turned turtle, causing injuries to the petitioner. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Mancherial and from there to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. This accident is the subject matte of Cr.No.89 of 2000 of P.S., Hijjapur. The petitioner in all claimed compensation of Rs.1.50 Lakhs. 3. The first and second respondents filed their respective counters denying the various averments made in the petition. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the lower tribunal for trial: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident occurred on 4.11.200 due to the rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.AAP-2853? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 5. In support of his case the petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and got examined Dr. Tippe Swamy, who issued disability certificate (Ex A-7) and marked Exs A-1 to A-7. No documentary or oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 6. As per the evidence of PW-2 the petitioner suffered compound fracture of both bones of right leg, as a result of which he suffered Traumatic stiffness of right knee and right ankle. Apart from this, the petitioner also suffered two other simple injuries. The tribunal below granted compensation of Rs.22,000-00, disbelieving the evidence of the medical officer who gave evidence about the injuries, as he was not the doctor that treated the petitioner at the first instance. However, the fact remains that the petitioner suffered fracture of both bones of right leg and that must have caused him some pain and inconvenience for some time. Apart from this the petitioner might have also spent amount for treatment and must have been out of work for about a month. His salary is said to be Rs.5,000-00 per month. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that he was out of employment for one year and the certificate produced to that extent cannot be relied upon at all, as the injuries suffered by him would not show that he required complete bed rest for such a longer period. 8. Considering all these circumstances, towards pain and suffering, loss of income for one month, medical expenses, permanent disability on account of fractures to both bones of the right leg, compensation of Rs.22,000-00 awarded by the tribunal below is evidently on lower side. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation is now enhanced to from Rs.22,000-00 to Rs.45,000-00 on all the above heads, put together, with interest @ 6% per annum on the amount enhanced, with proportionate costs. 9. In the result the appeal is allowed, in part, to the extent indicated above. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Dated:21---10---2010. *BVS