THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3257 OF 2002 ORAL JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed Under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) against the judgment dated 01-10-2001 in O.P.No.495 of 1996 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. The appellant is claimant before the Tribunal and she filed O.P under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. 3. As per the appellant, she is aged about 50 years and is working as a Labourer in a fruit market at Kothapet and earning a sum of Rs.1000/- per month at the time of accident. Further according to the appellant/claimant, on 24-05-1995 at about 8.00 P.M, while she was doing her work, the driver of the lorry bearing No.MP-07 490 hit her while reversing the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and due to which she sustained fracture over the right leg and right hand and also received other injuries, and therefore, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was claimed. 4. The first respondent herein remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent who is the insurer of the vehicle resisted the claim petition by filing a counter-affidavit refuting all the allegations. 5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the accident involving the petitioner and lorry bearing No.MP 07 490 on 24-05-1995 near Fruit Market, Kothapet was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the said lorry by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner sustained the injuries mentioned in the petition and incurred any disability on account thereof ? 3. Whether the lorry in question was insured with R-2 at the relevant time? 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? 5. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the appellant, the appellant herself was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A-1 and Ex.X-1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, though no oral evidence was adduced, the true copy of Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.B-1. 7. Considering the material on record, the Tribunal holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence in driving the offending vehicle, awarded Rs.30,000/-, severally and jointly payable by both respondents, with interest @ 9% per annum from 09-04-1996 till the date of payment as compensation to the appellant for the injuries sustained by her during the course of accident. Being not satisfied with the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant/appellant has filed the present appeal. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the Tribunal has committed error in not awarding proper compensation. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal has granted compensation more than what the appellant is entitled to and so there is no necessity to enhance the same. He also contended that the Doctor who treated the victim/appellant was not examined. 10. Now the point for determination is:- Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is “just” and, if so, to what compensation the appellant is entitled ? 11. Having heard the counsel appearing on either side and perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that the claimant sustained injuries to her right elbow and right leg and the injuries are grievous in nature as stipulated in Ex.X-1 case sheet. Apart from this she was admitted to the hospital as In-patient from 24-05-1995 to 17- 06-1995 and undergone treatment for the injuries. The medical record (Ex.X-1) however does not disclose that the claimant suffered any disability. 12. As already stated, Ex.X-1 (case sheet) shows that the appellant sustained grievous injuries and taking into account two injuries and the period of treatment, the Tribunal awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.30,000/-. Admittedly, the injured is a labourer working in the fruit market and earning Rs.1,000/- per month at the time of accident. Having regard to the nature of grievous injuries suffered by the injured, period of treatment in the hospital, pain and suffering, loss of earnings during the period of treatment and the extra nourishment for recovery from the injuries, I am of the considered view that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,000/- is just and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award of the Tribunal with regard to compensation is enhanced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 7% (instead of 9% as awarded by the Tribunal) from 9-4-1996 till the date of payment. No order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 5TH AUGUST, 2010 TSNR