THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 3635 OF 2005 Dated: 30.12.2010 Between: S.Amarjeet Singh Makhija ... APPELLANT AND K.Mallikarjun Rao and another ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 3635 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the order dated 15-09-2004 in O.P No. 1846 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. The claimant is the appellant herein who filed O.P before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident. He pleaded that he is a proprietor of Makhija Steels earning Rs.10,000/- per month. While so, on 29.05.2000, at about 8.30 A.M. when he was proceeding on his scooter bearing No. AP 11 G 1663 from Bairamalguda towards Santhoshnagar and by the time he reached Karmanghat Cross Roads, the driver of the scooter bearing No. AP 11 F 2123, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, due to which he fell down and sustained fracture of both bones of left leg and other injuries. The first respondent remained ex parte before the court below. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed the counter denying all the material allegations. On the strength of the rival pleadings, the learned judge framed necessary issues as to whether the appellant sustained injuries in the accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of scooter bearing No. AP 11 F 2123 and whether the appellant is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom and to what relief he is entitled to. On behalf of the appellant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked and Ex.B-1 Insurance Policy was marked on behalf of the respondent – Insurance Company. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal answered the first and second issues in favour of the appellant and as regards the third issue, an amount of Rs.80,000/- was awarded towards compensation. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the learned Judge, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Judge has failed to consider that the appellant was a businessman and he has sustained loss for three months in business during the period of hospitalisation and treatment and that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.80,000/- as against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/- of the appellant which is on lower side and, therefore, the same needs to be enhanced. The learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and needs no interference. There is no dispute with regard to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle. The Tribunal has not granted any amount towards loss of future income in view of the fact that the doctor who was examined as PW2 did not state anything with regard to the disability sustained by the appellant. But as seen from the record, due to the accident, the appellant was admitted in the hospital on 29.05.2000 and was inpatient till 02.06.2000 and for three months he could not walk. According to the appellant, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from his business and due to his non attending to his business for the said period, he sustained severe loss. In view of the fact that the appellant could not attend to his business for three months and if we take the income of the appellant at Rs.6000/- per month, for three months, the loss of income during the period of hospitalisation and treatment would come to Rs.18,000/- which is rounded off to Rs.20,000/-. Apart from the same, since the doctor who was examined as PW2 deposed that the appellant sustained a fracture on left knee joint and the upper end of tibia was depressed, the appellant is granted Rs.10,000/- each for the said fracture and depression of tibia. Thus, apart from the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to additional sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of hospitalisation and treatment and another sum of Rs.20,000/- for the injuries sustained by him as stated supra. Therefore, in all, the compensation comes to Rs. 1,20,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by learned Judge is enhanced from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.1,20,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 30.12.2010 lvl THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 3635 OF 2004 Dt. 30.12.2010