THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1388 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the claimant against the common judgment dated 06.11.2002 in O.P.No.270 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nellore questioning the quantum of compensation. According to the case of the claimant on 11.11.1995 when the claimant was traveling in the jeep bearing No. APG 5018, the driver of the jeep drove it in a rash and negligent manner and hit the lorry bearing No.TNC 7853 at Kommalapudi village. As a result of which, the claimant sustained multiple injuries and treated in hospital and he suffered disability. He claimed a compensation of Rs.2,10,000/-. The 1st respondent in the O.P., who was the owner of the vehicle filed a counter that the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent and there is no liability even from the narration of the facts. The 2nd respondent also filed a counter disputing the liability and claiming that the incident was due to rashness and negligence of the driver of the lorry. The 4th respondent, with whom the lorry was also insured, filed a memo adopting the counter of the 2nd respondent. The said O.P. was clubbed with another O.P.No.341 of 1999. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal found that the incident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep and accordingly held the respondents 1, 2 and 5 liable to pay compensation. The lower Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.32,000/- to the claimant. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the present appeal. The insurance company has not filed any appeal questioning the liability. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the quantum of compensation granted is not just and the evidence on record clearly goes to show that the claimant suffered disability and spent money for treatment and mere non-examination of the doctor is no reason to disbelieve the report of the radiologist. According to the evidence of P.W.1, he received injuries to his back bone, ribs with fractures and he has got a fracture of the right clavicle also. He claims that he was treated at Gudur and thereafter at Madras and spent Rs.70,000/- for medical expenses but produced only bills for Rs.38,000/- under Ex.A-4. He filed Ex.A-5 X-ray report and also Ex.A-2 wound certificate. He also examined C.W.1, who is said to be a radiologist, who opined that the petitioner has got fractures of the ribs and he was said to be treated at Madras. The lower Tribunal has not taken into consideration the evidence of the radiologist because he is not competent to speak about the injuries. In fact, it is only on the basis of the radiologist’s report and opinion, the doctor gives the final opinion about the nature of the injuries. Whether there are fractures or not can only be determined after considering the radiologist report. Since the radiologist himself has deposed and produced the X-ray films, the lower Tribunal went to wrong in not accepting the above report. Therefore, from the evidence of the radiologist, it is quite clear that the claimant received multiple grievous injuries and the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.18,000/- for all the injuries. But, however, I feel the ends of justice would meet, if a compensation of Rs.25,000/- is granted for the pain and suffering for the above injuries. The lower Tribunal has also granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses though the bills produced by him shows that it is more than Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, taking into consideration the nature of the injuries received by the petitioner and also longer treatment at Gudur and Madras, I feel, a further sum of Rs.5,000/- is to be granted as compensation for medical expenses. A sum of Rs.5,000/- is also granted towards loss of earnings. The lower Tribunal has also granted transport charges of Rs.2,000/- and it can be enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. There is no proof of any disability. Therefore, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). With the above modification, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 29-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1388 of 2011 DATE: 29-08-2011 MR