IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO : 598 of 2002 (Appeal under Section ____ against the order/decree in OP no. : 420 of 1996 dated 29/11/2099 on the file of the court of theI Additional District Judge, Nalgonda) Between: Lokasani DharmaReddy S/o. Kista Reddy r/o. Parada Village, Kattangoor Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 K. Guruji S/o. Venkatrama Narsiah r/o. Venkata Swamy Cement Works, Tallagadda, Suryapet, Nalgonda Dist. (Owner of Lorry bearing No. ADM 8613) 2 The United India Insurance Company Ltd, Nalgonda Dist. The United India Insurance Company Ltd, Branch Office, K.K. Road, Opp to Hotel Vijetha, Suryapet, Nalgonda Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.M.RAJAMALLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : MR.SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA FOR RR2 The Court delivered the following JUDGEMENT: PSR, J. C.M.A.No. 598 of 2002 Judgment: This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda in O.P.No. 420 of 1996. The claimant is the appellant herein. 2. The facts of the case are – on 12-9-1995 at about 11.00 AM, the petitioner was waiting in front of his watch repair shop at Kattangur village. At that time, lorry bearing No. ADM-8613 came from Vijayawada side in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed the petitioner, on account of which he received a fracture on his left leg. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nalgonda for treatment. On account of the accident, the petitioner permanently disabled and he is unable to walk and run his shop. He claimed compensation of Rs.1.00 Lakh. 2. The second respondent-insurance company filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and subjecting the petitioner to strict proof of all the averments. 3. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial: i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries having involved in a motor accident due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Lorry bearing No.ADM-8617? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, for what amount and payable by whom? iii) To what relief? 4. On behalf of the petitioner, PW-1 was examined and got marked Exs A-1 toA-4. On the basis of the material on record, the trial court awarded compensation of Rs.10,000-00. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, the claimant preferred the present appeal. 5. The record reveals that the petitioner sustained fracture of the base of 5th metacarpal bone. As observed by the learned trial judge, the contention of the petitioner that he was inpatient in a private hospital for one month can never be accepted, as Ex A-2 the wound certificate issued by the Government Hospital shows fracture of the base of fifth metacarpal bone with a lacerated wound. Therefore, he might be out of work for few days on account of that injury and he must have suffered pain. Apart from the fracture, he suffered a lacerated wound also. Considering all the circumstances, a total compensation of Rs.20,000-00 can be awarded to the petitioner. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs.20,000-00. The petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum, on the enhanced amount of compensation. He is also entitled to proportionate costs. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. June 29, 2010. *BVS