THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A.No.44 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred by the claimant against the order dated 19.11.2003 in M.V.O.P. No.554 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy whereby and whereunder the claimant was awarded a compensation of Rs.16,000/- as against the claim of Rs.80,000/-, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the M.V.O.P. 3. The facts leadings to filing of this appeal can be summarized as follows: That on 8.1.2000 at 9.00 a.m., the petitioner was proceeding towards Utpally from Narayankhed on his scooter along with one Mohan Reddy. When he reached near Morgi Cross Road, Jeep bearing No.AP-23-5861 came from opposite direction at a high speed and dashed to the scooter, resultantly, the petitioner sustained fracture injury below the knee joint and fracture of right leg middle portion. Respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver of the jeep and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the jeep. 4 .Both the respondents filed their respective counters inter alia, disputing the occurrence of the accident on 8.1.2000 and also age, occupation and income of the petitioner. Further it was stated that the claim made by the petitioner is exorbitant. 5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of both sides, framed the issues as to the rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1- driver of the jeep bearing No.AP-23-5861, and the entitlement of the petitioner. 6. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked, whereas no witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents, except marking Ex.B.1-copy of insurance policy of the jeep involved in the accident, with consent. 7. After taking the oral and documentary evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1-driver of the Jeep and that respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.16,000/- to the petitioner. 8. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by the petitioner. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that the Doctor, who had treated him was examined as PW.2 and he has testified as to his examining and treating him and also issuing Ex.A5-medical certificate and Ex.A8- out patient prescription slip. PW.2 has testified that the petitioner had sustained ligament injury which is more serious than a fracture. He also testified that the patient finds difficulty and is likely to fall while walking because of the knee instability and he cannot carry on his day- to-day activities in life with ease and that he cannot stand for long hours. Further, Ex.A.3-certified copy of injury certificate reveals that the petitioner had sustained two simple injuries. Therefore, it is contended that the Tribunal had not considered the evidence of PW.2- medical witness as well as Exs.A.3, A.5, and A.8 in proper perspective. It is also contended that though the medical bills to the tune of Rs.41,359/- were filed vide Ex.A.4, the Tribunal had granted only a meagre amount of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses holding that the petitioner was treated at Government hospital at Narayankhed which is not justifiable. It is contended that the petitioner was treated at the said Government hospital only for two days and thereafter he was shifted to a private hospital for better treatment and as such, he had incurred Rs.41,359/- towards medicines. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to claim the said amount under ExA.4-medical bills. It is further contended that the petitioner also had suffered loss of earnings as an agriculturist during the period of his treatment for about five months. It is also contended that the Tribunal failed to consider permanent disability of 25% suffered by the petitioner as assessed by PW.2-medical witness. Moreover, PW.2 has also testified that the petitioner is required to undergo three more operations as indicated under Ex.A.6. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the amount of compensation may be reasonably enhanced. 10. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the second respondent-insurance company that the petitioner had suffered only two simple injuries as per Ex.A3; that he did not suffer any fracture injury and that the treatment given to the petitioner was in conservative method. It is further contended that the medical bills under Ex.A4 are created for the purpose of claim, as such the Tribunal, without believing them, has granted a lumpsum amount of Rs.16,000/- taking into consideration the injuries and the treatment as mentioned in Exs.A3, A5 and A.8 coupled with the evidence of PW.2. 11. After hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record, it appears that the Tribunal has failed to consider the ligament injury sustained by the petitioner as spoken to by PW.2-Medical evidence that it is a serious injury than fracture as the petitioner is likely to fall while walking due to knee instability and that it also does not permit him to carry on his daily activities in life with ease. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the evidence of PW.2-medical witness, this court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards ligament injury and Rs.5,000/- towards 25% permanent disability, though no certificate is filed to that effect, in addition to the compensation of Rs.16,000/- granted by the Tribunal. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing compensation from Rs.16,000/- to Rs.41,000/- (Rupees Forty One Thousand) only. However, the enhanced compensation shall carry the rate of interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest. No order as to costs. ______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 18.07.2011 Stp