THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO.1960 OF 2011 JUDGMENT:- The appeal is filed, against the order dated 18-08-2003 of the III Additional District Judge, Kainada in M.P.O.P.No.65 of 2000, by the claimant questioning the quantum of compensation granted for the injuries received by the appellant in a motor accident. According to the petitioner, when the petitioner was going in the Auto bearing No.AP5X 4673 near Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada, the driver of the bus bearing AP5X 6516 drove it in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the auto, as a result of which the petitioner received multiple injuries and was in hospital and spent money for treatment and suffered disability and loss of earnings. The claim was made against the owner of the auto and insurance company and also the owner of the bus. The lower court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the incident was due to the fault of the driver of the bus. The lower court has granted a compensation of Rs.33,500/-. The Insurance Company did not challenge the award. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion that the petitioner suffered disability and spent money for treatment and the quantum of compensation granted by the lower court is not just and as can be seen from the order of the lower court that the petitioner is said to have received three injuries. One is to the right partial bone, left waist and also hip bone and the petitioner is said to have been in Government Hospital and thereafter as in-patient for eight days in Care hospital. Ex.A-2 is the attested copy of the wound certificate and Ex.A-3 is the bunch of medical bills. The lower court found that there is no proof of admission of treatment in Care hospital. But Ex.A-3 bunch of medical bills shows that the petitioner has spent nearly Rs.20,000/- whereas the lower court has granted a compensation of Rs.3,000/- only. Evidently, there are fractures and the petitioner was hospitalized. Apart from the medical bills the incidental expenditure cannot also be ignored. The medical bills themselves disclose a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Even if they are suspected to be on a higher side but granting of a sum of Rs.3,000/- only as medical expenses and for treatment is on a lower side. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts and also the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner, I feel ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.50,000/- is granted. Hence, the award of the lower court is modified to the extent indicated above. In the result, the appeal is allowed in-part while granting compensation of Rs.50,000/- in stead of Rs.33,500/- as granted by the lower court. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 12-09-2011 TSNR