THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1853 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the claimant against the judgment dated 04.06.2004 in O.P.No.493 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad questioning the quantum of compensation. The petitioner claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries received in a motor accident on 09.05.1998 when he was said to be traveling on the scooter, the lorry bearing No.HR-29-C-6266 carrying the LPG cylinders came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter, as a result of which, he received injuries and fell down. The 1st respondent, the owner of the lorry remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent, the insurance company filed a written statement denying the petition averments, nature of accident, nature of injuries and its liability. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal found that the incident was due to the fault of the driver of the lorry. However, so far as the injuries are concerned, the lower Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.15,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the petitioner has received multiple injuries. He relied upon the evidence of the petitioner, who claimed that he sustained fracture to his left hand, head injury and injuries to left fore arm and other parts of the body and after the incident he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kamareddy and thereafter he took treatment. He claims to have been in hospital for 15 days and spent Rs.40,000/- and operated. He filed Exs.A-3 to A-25 to substantiate the above claim. The lower Tribunal found that the evidence both oral and documentary produced by the petitioner is exaggerative. The lower Tribunal also found that there was delay in filing of the documents. But the fact remains that pathological report Exs.A-7 to A-12 were filed and they are dated 14.12.2002 long after the incident. The X-ray films Exs.A-23 and A-24 are not relied upon, as there was no report of the radiologist. The learned Judge has taken into consideration Ex.A-2 wound certificate, which shows a simple injury over the top of the head and a contusion over the left forearm, which is a grievous injury. The lower Tribunal also took into consideration the fact that the police have filed a charge sheet against the driver for an offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, the lower Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment, which will meet the ends of justice. [ As rightly found by the lower Tribunal, Exs.A-6 to A-12 relate to the year 2002, which are long after the incident. But, however, there is a fracture of ulna and another simple injury and taking into consideration the above facts, I feel the ends of justice would meet, if a compensation of Rs.15,000/- is granted towards the injuries suffered by the petitioner. So far as the medical expenses are concerned, the lower Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.5,000/-, which cannot be said to be meagre. The petitioner was said to have lost earnings, for which there is no proof. But, however, the fracture of ulna and even by application of POP, if not operated, will cause loss of earnings and, therefore, taking into consideration the above fact a sum of Rs.5,000/- is granted for loss of earnings. Hence, the total compensation entitled by the petitioner is Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) instead of Rs.15,000/- granted by the lower Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 30-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1853 of 2011 DATE: 30-08-2011 MR