THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 372 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the decree and Order dated 26.3.2007 passed in O.P.No. 169 of 2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl. District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad, the present M.A.C.M.A. is filed. Appellant herein is the claimant in O.P.No. 169 of 2004 and he claimed compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs, but the tribunal below awarded an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present M.A.C.M.A. is filed mainly urging that the award of compensation granted by the tribunal below is very meager and not in accordance with the gravity of the injuries as spoken to by the P.Ws.1 and 2, and urged for enhancement of compensation. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal below. The Petitioner filed O.P.No. 169 of 2004 claiming compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs on the ground that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident dated 9.5.2003. The factum of accident was not disputed. The tribunal below, the claimant while examining himself as P.W.1, examined P.W.2 Dr. Sudeer Kumar and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-4. Ex.A-3 is the certified copy of medical certificate Ex.B-1 is a policy which is equivalent to Ex.A- 4 Xerox copy of the said policy. The offending vehicle is having insurance coverage on the date of the accident. The tribunal below while evaluating the evidence of P.W.2 awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. As per the evidence on record, the petitioner sustained injury noted in Ex.A-3 wound certificate issued by Dr. Sudeer Kumar, who is examined as P.W.2. According to P.W.2, he found swelling and deformity over the left fore arm diagnosed as fracture of both bones of left fore arm, swelling over the left leg diagnosed as fracture of left tibia and an abrasion over the left fore arm. Among the above three injuries the first two injuries are grievous in nature, the third injury is simple in nature. A perusal of the charge sheet Ex.A-2, the name of P.W.2 also noted that he treated the P.W.1 injured. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 attaches any mount of significance while deciding the compensation for the grievous injuries sustained by P.W.1. It is also in the evidence that the petitioner underwent surgery twice and spent an amount of Rs. 60,000/- towards the treatment, but could not file any authenticated document in support of the said claim. The petitioner is aged 30 years working as a private teacher. Admittedly, she sustained fractures to both bones of left fore arm. At that age, she is deprived of her regular income and the said injuries will cause any amount of hindrance in her day to day life as she being a house wife and also an employee. The tribunal below granted only Rs. 7,500/- to each grievous injuries. But in my view the same is very meager and therefore, granting of Rs. 20,000/- to each grievous injury is just and reasonable. Accordingly, the same is granted which comes to Rs.40,000/-. The petitioner sustained one simple injury thereby an amount of Rs. 5,000/- is granted towards the simple injury. Though the petitioner did not file any documentary evidence regarding the expenditure incurred towards the treatment, in view of the gravity of the injuries, the petitioner certainly should have been spent Rs. 10,000/-, accordingly, the same is granted besides granting a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards the extra nourishment and Rs. 5,000/- granted towards the pain and suffering. In total she is entitled to a sum of Rs. 65,000/-. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 65,000/- is granted towards the compensation. However, the rate of interest granted by the tribunal below @ 7.5% is reduced to 6% per annum by applying the decision reported in SARLA VERMA (SMT) & OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & OTHERS[1]. With this modification, the C.M.A. is allowed. ___________________ 30.4.2011 CHV [1] 2009(6) S.C.C. 121