THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2946 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is ﬁled against the order dated 15.04.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.201 of 2000 on the ﬁle of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Machilipatnam questioning the quantum of compensation. A minor is said to have received multiple injuries in a motor accident on 13.01.1999 at about 9.45 A.M. when he was hit by a lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 1127, which came in a rash and negligent manner and he was treated in hospital for a long time and suﬀered disability as loss of vision and other injuries. He claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The petition against 1st respondent was dismissed. The 2nd respondent remained ex parte and the 3rd respondent pleaded that the incident was due to the negligence of the petitioner and consequently there is no liability and further pleaded that the petitioner was put to strict proof of negligence, nature of injuries and nature of compensation entitled to. The lower Tribunal, after considering the material on record, has granted a compensation of Rs.36,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT: So far as the nature of the incident is concerned, the fact that the petitioner received injuries in a motor accident is not in dispute and the petitioner being a minor, the plea of contributory negligence is not tenable. Therefore, the lower Tribunal has rightly accepted the cause of accident. As can be seen from the evidence on record, the petitioner is said to have been hospitalized for about 48 days, having been admitted on 04.01.1999 and discharged on 22.02.1999. The petitioner is said to be having prominent inguinal lymph nodes, irregular hypo & hyperechoic areas in both iliac fosses and anterior to urinary bladder, as per Ex.A-6 certiﬁcate. The evidence of P.W.2 goes to show that he has seen the petitioner and has treated him. The doctor, who issued Ex.A-6 was not examined. The particulars of the injuries were not doubted by the lower Tribunal. The lower Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.18,000/- for fracture of both pubic bones. So far as the medical expenses is concerned, it has not granted the amount as claimed. From the narration of the incident and also the facts, it is quite clear that the petitioner, who is a minor, was in hospital for 48 days, which fact is not in dispute and there is also no dispute that the fact that the petitioner received multiple injuries. Though there may not be any proof of actual medical expenses, the fact remains that there will be attendance and also the expenditure for such sustained long period. Therefore, taking into consideration the age of the petitioner and also the nature of the treatment and injuries received by him, I feel the ends of justice would meet, if a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted. Therefore, the compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). The interest rate shall be at 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 22-11-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2946 of 2011 DATE: 22-11-2011 MR