THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 2481 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the judgment dated 13.12.2004 in O.P.No.830 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad questioning the quantum of compensation. The petitioner herein claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries received in a motor accident on 17.03.2000, who was working as a clear on the Iecher van bearing No.AP-1-T-2886, due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, he suffered multiple injuries and he was treated in private hospital, suffered disability and loss of earnings. The 1st respondent-owner remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent-insurance company filed counter denying the petition averments, nature of accident, nature of injuries and its liability. On considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-7, Ex.C-1 and Ex.B-1, the lower Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.12,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT: So far as the nature of the accident and cause of the injuries to the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute and the insurance company has not challenged the award. The lower Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner about the nature of injuries since he has not taken treatment in the Government hospital, even though he was referred by the police and was treated in the private hospital of Dr.C.Hari Prasad and consequently the wound certificate Ex.A-3 and x-ray films are discarded. The evidence of P.W.2 is also discarded, as his evidence does not appear to be probable. Evidently, there is no rule that immediately after the accident the injured should be treated only in Government hospital and there is no prohibition for treatment in the Government hospital. Ex.A-3 is the certificate issued by Dr.C.Hari Prasad and he was also cited as a witness by the police in the charge sheet. Therefore, the correctness of the certificate issued by him can be considered. As can be seen from Ex.A- 3, there are three fractures, which should have been only opined after considering the X-ray report. Merely because, the certificate number of the x-ray report is not mentioned, there is no ground to discard the same. It cannot be forgotten that the police have filed a charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle for the offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, taking into consideration of all the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner received only simple injuries as opined by the lower Tribunal. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries mentioned in Ex.A-3 and also the nature of the treatment, disability and the loss of earnings, which the petitioner has suffered, the quantum of compensation is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and on the enhanced amount, the interest will be at 6% per annum from the date of the appeal. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 31-10-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2481 of 2011 DATE: 31-10-2011 MR