HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1017 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order in M.V.O.P. No.273 of 1999 dated 17-04-2001 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional District Judge, Kurnool. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they arrayed in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as under: (a) On 06-10-1998, while the claimant was proceeding towards Mydukur in lorry bearing No.AP21 – T – 3194 along with sunflower seeds loaded in the lorry, near Sirvel Metta and Venkatapuram Villages, at 6-00 PM, another lorry bearing No.AP10 – T – 797, belonging to respondent No.1, coming in the opposite direction, driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his lorry, as a result, he sustained fracture to his left leg, injury to his left shoulder and right knee and other injuries. He spent Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses. He was earning Rs.100/- a day and on account of the accident, he became permanently disabled and unable to walk and do any work. Hence, he claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under various heads. (b) Respondent No.1, owner of the offending lorry, remained ex parte and respondent No.2, M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 4. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP10 – T – 797 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioner (claimant) is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and against which of the respondents ? 3. To what relief ? 5. To prove his case, claimant got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-11. On behalf of the Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B-1, insurance policy, was marked. 6. Based on the evidence on record, Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.19,500/- to the claimant with interest at 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 7. Heard Sri A. Jaya Sankara Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the claimant, and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 9. The claim of the claimant is Rs.1,00,000/-. According to his evidence, he suffered fracture to his left leg. He filed certified copy of the wound certificate issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Nandyal to show that he sustained fracture apart from a simple injury. PW.3 is the Doctor, who treated the claimant. He deposed that claimant suffered 25% - 30% permanent disability and he cannot drive the vehicle because of shortening of left leg and also disability. 10. The Tribunal observing that claimant failed to produce certificate issued by the Medical Board to show percentage of the disability he sustained in the accident and as Ex.A-3 shows fracture of left tibia at upper 1/3rd, came to the conclusion that he is entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards fracture, Rs.1,000/- for the simple injuries, Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.500/- towards loss of earnings and accordingly awarded a total compensation of Rs.19,500/-. 11. Now the question that falls for determination is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is inappropriate ? 12. The Tribunal has not given any cogent reasons as to why only Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards fracture of left leg. The medical officer of the Government Hospital concerned is examined and it is not disputed that claimant suffered fracture of his left leg. Simply because, a certificate from Medical Board is not produced, evidence of PW.3, the Doctor who treated the claimant, could not have been disbelieved. According to PW.3, claimant suffered some permanent disability, as such, he can be awarded another Rs.15,000/- towards permanent disability and consequent effects of loss of income and amenities in life. 13. Accordingly, compensation is enhanced by Rs.15,000/- and thus the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.34,500/-. However, interest on the enhanced compensation shall be at 7.5% per annum only from the date of petition. The claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount as and when deposited. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 28, 2010. PV