IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A. NO. 167 OF 2008 Between: Mohd. Jalal ..... Appellant AND K.Venkateshwar and another .....Respondents The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved against the judgment dated 26.06.2007 in O.P. No. 2072 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Addl. Dist. Judge – Fast Track Court), Nizamabad, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed mainly urging that the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal below is very meager and requested for enhancement of compensation. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation? The appellant herein is the petitioner in OP No. 2072 of 2002. He filed the petition claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakh for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident. In order to prove the accident, he himself was examined as PW-1 and filed Exs. A-1 and A-2 i.e. certified copy of the FIR and certified copy of the charge sheet. A perusal of Exs. A-1 and A-2 shows that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending two wheeler insured with the respondent No.2 Insurance Company. A perusal of Ex. B-1 copy of the policy and Ex.B-2 Insurance policy, shows that the offending two wheeler is under coverage as on the date of accident. The factum of accident was not disputed. The petitioner in order to claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him, has examined himself as PW-1 and also examined Dr.Jaya Prakash as PW-2 and filed medical evidence, Exs. A-3 to A-15. The Tribunal below while assessing the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and documentary evidence Exs. A-3 to A-15, awarded compensation of Rs.36,400/- on all heads against a claim of Rs.4.00 lakhs. Admittedly, PW-1 sustained three grievous injuries besides simple injuries. In proof of the same, PW-2 Dr. Jaya Prakah is examined. According to him, on 21.11.2002 the petitioner was admitted in his hospital with a history of road traffic accident and on examination he found a swelling on right cheek and forehead, etc. and X- ray and C.T. scan revealed fracture of right maxillary bone, fracture of frontal bone with hemorrhage, contusion of frontal lobe and fracture of frontal sinus. Exs. A-3 and A- 4 are the wound certificate and discharge summary, evidencing the aforesaid injuries. Therefore, I am of the view that the appellant/petitioner sustained three grievous injuries besides simple injury. The Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/- for each grievous injury and Rs.1,000/- each for the simple injury. Ex.A-4 Discharge Summary and Exs. A-7 and A-8 CT scan and Pathological reports, clearly read that the injuries sustained by PW-1 are grievous in nature and he was admitted in the hospital in serious condition. Therefore, the evidence of PW-2 and Exs. A-4, 7 and 14 assume any amount of importance while deciding the quantum of compensation. Admittedly, the petitioner was admitted in hospital and has taken periodical treatment and was inpatient for good number of days and, therefore, on totality of circumstances, grant of Rs.5000/- towards injuries noted in Exs. A-3 and A-4 is very meager and they do warrant enhancement of Rs.10,000/- for each grievous injury. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is granted towards each grievous injury, which includes pain and suffering. The amount of Rs.15,000/- granted by the Tribunal for the three grievous injuries, is enhanced to Rs.45,000/-. The Tribunal granted Rs.1,000/- towards the simple injury. The same is enhanced to Rs.3000/-. Further an amount of Rs.2,000/- is enhanced towards extra nourishment against award of Rs.3,000/- by the Tribunal below. Therefore, in total, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.70,400/-. The Tribunal below awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition. Applying the principle laid down i n Sarla Varma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another ([1]) the same has to be reduced to 6% p.a. With this modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. __________________ Justice K.S. Appa Rao April 25, 2011 MAS. [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121