THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.626 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.10.2007 in O.P.No.553 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad, the present appeal is filed. The appellant herein is the claimant in the above O.P. She filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 16.03.2004. The Tribunal below after evaluating the evidence on record awarded total compensation of Rs.48,000/- under the heads of medical expenses, pain and suffering and loss of income. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant urged that the Tribunal below, without taking into consideration the voluminous documentary evidence adduced by the claimant, granted meagre compensation of Rs.48,000/- which is disproportionate and, therefore, seeks for enhancement of the same. Learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company, while supporting the judgment of the Tribunal, contended that the same needs no interference. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? The claimant while examining herself as PW1, examined PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined but Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. The claimant filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on the ground that she sustained injuries in the accident. The factum of accident is not disputed. PW2 is the doctor who treated PW1 and issued Injury Certificate Ex.A3. In order to prove the injuries sustained by her, PW1 examined PW2 who is a private Orthopaedic Surgeon. In a case of this nature, the medical evidence assumes paramount importance while granting compensation. Admittedly, the claimant was aged about 50 years at the time of accident and sustained fractures. According to the evidence of PW2-doctor, he examined the claimant on 16.03.2004 and found fracture of second and third metacarpal of left hand, fracture of let olecranon, fracture of calcaneum of the left heel and multiple abrasions on the fore head and on the radial aspect of left foot. He is of the opinion that injuries 1 to 3 are grievous in nature and injury No.4 is simple in nature. Considering the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant, granting of Rs.25,000/- for the first injury and Rs.20,000/- each for the second and third injuries would be just and reasonable. Since the fourth injury is simple in nature, an amount of Rs.5000/- is granted for the said injury. When these injuries are sustained by the claimant, certainly she would have suffered pain and suffering, but the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering is on higher side and, therefore, it is just and reasonable to grant Rs.10,000/- under the said head, besides granting of Rs.5000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.5000/- towards transportation charges. In total, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.90,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident, but the Tribunal below awarded only Rs.48,000/-. The said compensation is very meagre and disproportionate. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.48,000/- to Rs.90,000/-. However, the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. K.S.APPA RAO,J Dt.22.07.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.626 of 2008 Dt. 22.07.2011