HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY M.A.C.M.A. No.788 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.O.P. No.401 of 2003 vide judgment dated 03-02-2005 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, claimant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The owner of the motorcycle (Bajaj Boxer) bearing No.AP21 – E – 9958 involved in the accident and its insurer are respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 21-02-2003 at about 3-20 PM while she was proceeding on foot Kurnoool – Nandyal Highway to purchase fruits in Rythu Bazar, near C - Camp center, Kurnool, motor cycle bearing No.AP21 – E – 9958 belonging to respondent No.1 and being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and high speed, hit the claimant from her backside, as a result, she fell down on the ground and sustained multiple grievous injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool for treatment. Due to the injuries sustained by her, she is unable to walk without any assistance and is unable to sit or squat. She spent Rs.7,000/- towards medical expenses and attendant charges. She was a fruit vendor and was earning Rs.80/- a day. She was the sole breadwinner of the family. Hence, she claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. 5. Respondent No.1, owner of the motorcycle, remained ex parte and respondent No.2, insurer of the motorcycle, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “(1) Whether the accident occurred on 21-2-2003 was due to rash and negligent driving of the Bajaj Boxer Motor cycle bearing No.AP-21-E-9958 belonging to first respondent? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief?” 7. To prove her case, claimant got examined herself as PW.1 and the doctor who treated her as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A- 8. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral evidence was adduced, but marked insurance policy of the offending motorcycle as Ex.B-1 with consent. 8. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.15,075/- to the claimant fixing the liability on both the respondents for payment of compensation jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 9. Since neither of the respondents preferred any appeal or cross-objections, there is no need to decide the question of proving the accident and their liability for payment of compensation. 10. Therefore, now the only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is inadequate ? 11. Even as per the impugned judgment, claimant sustained one fracture apart from three simple injuries on left knee, a tender portion of the body, etc. As per Ex.A-3 wound certificate, claimant sustained ‘(1) tenderness over sacral area, (2) tenderness over left groin and lateral aspect of hip, (3) tenderness over lower third of left femur, and (4) left knee effusion and tenderness.’ PW.2, who treated the claimant, opined that injury Nos.1 to 3 are simple in nature and injury No.4 is grievous in nature. In spite of taking into consideration the above injuries sustained by the claimant and holding that she sustained 10% permanent disability, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.15,075/- to her. 12. Whether the claimant sustained any permanent disability or not, she sustained a fracture apart from three simple injuries. The claimant, who is a woman, said to be a fruit vendor and her claim is that she was earning Rs.80/- a day by selling fruits and she was the sole breadwinner of the family and due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident, she is unable to walk without any assistance and is unable to sit or squat. Some amount has to be awarded towards loss of income, pain and suffering, medical expenses, extra nourishment etc. In the circumstances, another Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) can be safely awarded to the claimant and is accordingly awarded. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.15,075/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is enhanced to Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only). She can withdraw the entire amount soon after its deposit. The rate of interest on the enhanced compensation shall be at 6% per annum from the date of O.P. till realization. 13. With the above enhancement in quantum of compensation and directions, the appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 3, 2010. PV