HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A.No.446 of 2005 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 27.9.2004 in M.V.O.P.No. 303 of 2000 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Krishna at Machilipatnam, whereby the claim petition was partly allowed awarding a total compensation of Rs.40,000/- as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/-, the claimant filed this appeal inter alia on the following grounds: That the trial court having held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent-driver-owner and that the appellant sustained head injury which is grievous in nature and later he developed epilepsy, erred in awarding a meagre amount of Rs.40,000/-. The trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. 2. The parties herein shall be referred to as they were arrayed in the M.V.O.P. 3. The brief facts that led to the present appeal are that on 23.3.2000 at about 4.30 p.m. the petitioner and his uncle were proceeding on bicycle to Kaviraja Kalamandapam from Goodmenpet for purchasing waste tyres. The petitioner was peddling the bicycle and his uncle Muda Balaiah sat as a pillion rider. When they reached near Kaviraja Kalamandapam, a lorry bearing registration No.ATG 5335 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed driven by its driver and dashed against the petitioner’s bicycle. The lorry dragged the petitioner to a distance of 15 yards. The petitioner received injuries and he was admitted in Gudivada Government hospital. A case in crime No.7 of 2000 was registered under Sections 337 and 338 IPC against the first respondent-driver-cum-owner. The petitioner was earning Rs.200/- per day at the time of the accident. 4. The first respondent was set exparte. The second respondent- insurance company filed counter denying the occurrence of the accident and stated that the offending lorry was not having fitness certificate and the insurance policy of the lorry was not subsisting at the time of the accident. It is further stated in the counter that even if there was any accident, it had occurred due to negligence of the petitioner-cyclist. 5. Basing on the pleadings of both sides, the trial court framed the relevant issues as to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and as to the entitlement of the petitioner and the liability of the respondents to pay compensation. 6. During the course of trial, the petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 besides examining a Doctor as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the insurance company, no witnesses were examined but Ex.B.1-insruance policy was marked. 7. The trial court after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, partly allowed the M.V.O.P. awarding a total compensation of Rs.40,000/- as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, this C.M.A. has been preferred by the claimant. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant in his arguments reiterated the contentions which are raised in the grounds of appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 10. It is to be seen that the doctor who treated the petitioner was examined as PW.2. The evidence of PW.2 is that the petitioner was admitted in Neuro Ward on 23.3.2000. X-ray of the skull was taken and it shows that the petitioner suffered fracture. The petitioner had sustained grievous head injury and he was unconscious for 24 hours. The petitioner developed epilepsy due to head injury after two months of the accident. Exs.A.6 and A7 indicate that the petitioner developed epilepsy. Further, the evidence of PW.2 indicates that the petitioner suffered fits for two years. 11. Having regard to the evidence of PW.2 and facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that the trial court ought to have awarded 40,000/-towards head injury and fits instead of Rs.25,000/-, since the petitioner sustained grievous head injury and later he developed epilepsy. Further, the trial court ought to have awarded Rs,23,000/-towards mental agony instead of Rs.3,000/-, which is just and reasonable since petitioner has sustained grievous injury and he was unconscious for 24 hours. 12. In the circumstances, it is to be held that the petitioner-appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) ( i.e. Rs 40,000/-towards head injury and fits, Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.1,000/- towards transportation and Rs.23,000/-towards mental agony) with interest at 7.5% per annum so far as the enhanced compensation is concerned. 13. With this modification, the C.M.A. is disposed of. No order as to costs. ​ ​ _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 22 -10-2010 Stp