THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.1564 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the petitioner- claimant against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool in M.V.O.P.No.441 of 2000 dated 19.01.2003. Heard. The brief facts are as follows: The claimant is the appellant. According to him, on 18.01.2000 at about 10.00 a.m. while he was walking on the road, a tractor came in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed him from behind. Front wheel of the tractor ran over his left foot causing crush injury of the left great toe, as a consequence, he is not in a position to walk without aid of stick. He claimed compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. First respondent remained exparte and second respondent filed counter denying the allegations. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the tractor and trailor bearing No.AP-21-T-9050 and AP 21-T-9051? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.B1 copy of policy was marked. On the basis of the material on record, the court below granted compensation of Rs.14,650/-. Aggrieved by the above quantum, the present appeal is filed. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal? There is no dispute about the accident and the petitioner- appellant suffering injuries and there is also no dispute about his left great toe being amputated. The learned trial Judge observed that as per Workmen Compensation Act, Schedule-I, under item No.40, the petitioner suffered 3% disability. As such, he would be entitled for compensation of Rs.7,650/- towards loss of earnings and awarded the same under that head. No doubt, the above provision shows that part with some loss and bone of great toe can be calculated to cause 3% of loss of earning capacity. In view of the fact that on account of the injury, i.e. amputation of great toe even of the left foot, there would be substantial inconvenience in walking, thereby on the earning capacity apart from therebeing permanent disfiguration and the petitioner must have suffered substantial pain and suffering during the period of treatment because of injury and as he would suffer permanent disability leading to loss of certain amenities of life, I hold that the petitioner would be entitled for minimum compensation of Rs.60,000/-. C.M.A. is accordingly allowed in part enhancing the compensation to Rs.60,000/- from Rs.14,650/-. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation shall be at 6% per annum. No order as to costs. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Date: 24.11.2010 Rns