THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A.No. 2185 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 7.2.2003 in M.V.O.P.No. 336 of 2000 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Kadapa, the present C.M.A. is filed on the following grounds: The Order of the tribunal in awarding the compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/- against the claim of Rs. 1,50,000/- is is erroneous and contrary to law. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: That on 14.12.1998 at about 5-15 p.m. near Mukundashram on Cuddapah-Rajampet main road, while the claimant-injured was crossing the road, one Hyundai Santhro car bearing No. AP 28 K 9721 came from Cuddapah side in a high speed without observing the traffic rules, dashed the petitioner causing fracture of tibia and fibula on his right leg. He was admitted and treated in Government Hospital, Cuddapah for more than one week. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the lower Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the doctor, who treated the appellant and gave erroneous award which is contrary to law and facts of the case and the evidence on record and that the disability of 25% to the injured will cause hindrance to his day to day life of the injured and urged for enhancement of compensation. A perusal of the Order of the lower Court reveals that the M.V.O.P. was filed by the guardian-mother of the injured claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In the lower Court it was held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the same was not disputed by the respondents counsel. The only question for consideration in the appeal is whether the quantity of compensation granted is low? P.W-1 is mother of the injured. She was examined on behalf of the injured, a minor. According to P.W-1 she spent an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses and injured was treated in the hospital for five days. In support of her case, she filed Ex.A-2 disability certificate. P.W-2 is the doctor, who examined P.W-1, who deposed that P.W-1 received injuries over the right leg, muscle waisting present around the right leg, complaining of pain while walking, 3/4th inch shortening over the right leg which is a permanent disability of 25%. Ex.A-4 is the disability certificate. Ex.A-2 is the wound certificate which reads that there is only one injury i.e. right leg deformed, suspection of both bones fracture, X-ray shows fracture of tibia and fibula. It is strange to note that the doctor’s certificate Ex.A-2 reads that there is no grievous injury, probably due to oversight, that mistake might have been arisen. Therefore, in view of the abundant documentary evidence and oral evidence adduced through P.W-2, the injury sustained by the injured is fracture of tibia and fibula for which he is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 30,000/-. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in any view of the matter, the finding of the lower Court granting compensation is meager and hence granting compensation of Rs. 30,000/- against the award to the injury sustained by the P.W- 1 is just and reasonable and would meet the ends of justice. The additional amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of O.P. before the tribunal till realization. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ 4.3.2011 CHV