HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4737 of 2003 Between Animella Subbarayudu V C. Srinivasulu and another THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4737 of 2003 JUDGMENT: 1) The claimant-petitioner filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVOP No.729 of 2001 in its order dated 15-9-2003 for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 7-5-2001. 2) The facts in nutshell are that on 7-5-2001 at about 1-15 p.m. when the petitioner was going by walk by the side of the road near railway gate at Yerraguntla, the offending lorry bearing registration number APD 3909 belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with 2nd respondent came with high speed on wrong side in a rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioner causing head-in-injury to left elbow and other injuries all over his body. The petitioner was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Proddatur and from there to Government General Hospital, Kurnool where he underwent treatment for more than one month and thereafter as out-patient in private hospital by spending Rs.15,000/- towards his treatment. On account of injuries sustained by him, he is suffering from head- ache, giddiness and fits, and he is unable to do the work properly and therefore laid the claim for compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- for the injuries received in the accident. 3) The 1st respondent did not chose to file any counter and the 2nd respondent filed counter denying all the material averments in the petition. On the basis of the rival claims appropriate issues were framed. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence on record held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offender lorry driver and awarded compensation of Rs.40,000/-. Hence, this appeal by the claimant. 4) Heard learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the record. 5) Learned counsel for the appellant- claimant contended that the Tribunal did not place any reliance on the disability certificate and erred in not following the multiplier system for awarding the just compensation and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. 6) In the instant case, in the absence of any contra evidence adduced by the respondent, the finding recorded by the Tribunal as to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry needs no interference by this Court. As regards the compensation, the wound certificate Ex.A.2 issued by the doctor shows that the petitioner sustained fracture of right parietal bone , which alone is grievous and that the petitioner sustained other simple injuries. Though Ex.A.4-disability certificate was produced by the petitioner, the petitioner did not choose to examine the doctor who said to have issued the same, therefore the Tribunal rightly did not place any reliance on the said certificate. However considering the circumstance that the claimant was working as Hamali by the date of accident, and the nature of injuries sustained in the accident, particularly the injury of fracture of right parietal bone, and other injuries an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering. Thus, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.60,000/- 7) In the result, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs.60,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. Dt : 20-1-2011 Kk HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4737 of 2003 20-1-2011