IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A. NO.2783 OF 2001 Ganta Nageswara Rao .... APPELLANT AND Bhaskara Rao and others …RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2783 of 2001 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree in O.P.No.595 of 1999 dated 14.08.2001, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts are as follows: On 18-02-1996 the petitioner along with another person by name Kandina Nageswara Rao was traveling on a scooter, a lorry bearing No.AIV-4579 belonging to first respondent came in opposite direction in high speed and dashed against the scooter due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries all over the body. Thereafter he was shifted to Government Hospital, Parvatipuram and from there he was shifted to Karshaka Maharshi Hospital at Parvatipuram and then shifted to N.R.I. Hospital at Visakhapatnam. Respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte. The third respondent filed counter denying the allegations in the petition. 4. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1) Whether the accident and the injuries to the petitioner are due to rash and negligent driving of the accident vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.AIV-4579 by R-1 driver? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation so, from which of the respondents? 3) To what relief? 5. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked, and Exs.X1 to X3 were also marked through PW-2. The respondents did not adduce any evidence and no documents were marked. 6. On the basis of the material on record, the learned Trial Judge granted total compensation of Rs.17,243/-. 7. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that the petitioner suffered grievous injury on a vital part of the body like knee joint and inspite of spending substantial money for his treatment, the Court below erroneously granted lesser amount. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal and whether the petitioner is entitled to get more compensation? 9. There is no dispute that the petitioner receiving injuries in the accident and of being entitled for appropriate compensation. According to the certified copy of medical certificate Ex.A2, the petitioner suffered one simple injury and one grievous injury. The evidence of PW-2 reveals that the petitioner was treated as inpatient and surgery was performed on the right knee joint. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that he claimed Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of future earnings. He was hospitalized for about seven days. Though he claimed that he spent about Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.20,000/- for Doctor’s fee, no documentary proof was filed for the same. As seen from Ex.X-1 the petitioner spent only Rs.3,993/- for taking treatment at Visakhapatnam. PW-2 never said that he was paid Rs.20,000/- by the petitioner as claimed by the petitioner. Thus apparently the petitioner did not spend substantial money for his treatment or he was unable to produce the bills for the entire amounts spent by him. However, he was mentioned that for seven days he took treatment as inpatient at Government Hospital, Parvathipuram and the petitioner underwent surgery for his knee joint. He definitely spent Rs.3,993/-for which amount he produced Ex.X1. In the circumstances, I am inclined to grant an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards medical treatment, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, loss of earnings during the period of treatment and another sum of Rs.15,000/- towards minor permanent disability suffered by the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.17,243/- to Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand only) and interest at 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition. No order as to costs. _________________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. JUNE 29, 2010 YVL THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3353 of 2003 June 21, 2010