HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY M.A.C.M.A. No.74 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.O.P. No.128 of 2004 vide order dated 25-08-2005 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum - III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kadapa, claimant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Appellant is claimant, respondent No.1, who is owner of the mini lorry bearing No.AP04 – U – 1764 involved in the accident, and respondent No.2, who is insurer of the above mini lorry, 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 he is aged 40 years and doing business in fruits and onions etc., and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. While so, on 10-06-2002, while he was going in the mini lorry bearing No.AP04 – U –1764, by taking the same on hire for transporting Mangos from T. Sundupalle to Rayachoty, sitting by the side of the lorry driver along with the cleaner, near Kummarapalle, when a buffalo was crossing the road, the driver lost control over the vehicle and applied sudden brakes, as a result, lorry fell into a ditch and on account of the same, claimant sustained several injuries including fracture of left patella. He was treated at Government Hospital, Kadapa by PW.2 Dr. C. Sanjeevaiah. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1, owner of the lorry, remained ex parte and respondent No.2, insurance company, 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: “(i) Whether the petitioner received injuries in motor vehicle accident on 10-6-2002 due to rash or negligent driving of Mini-lorry bearing No.AP04/U.1764 belonging to R-1 and insured with R-2 by its driver ? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom ? (iii) To what relief ?” 7. To prove his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and the doctor, who treated him, as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-10. On behalf of the insurance company, no evidence was adduced. 8. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- to the claimant. Being dissatisfied with such compensation, claimant preferred this appeal. 9. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant (appellant) is that claimant, who is aged 40 years at the time of accident, sustained very serious injury i.e. fracture of left patella, which was broken into several pieces and even after treatment there is no complete healing of the injury, the movements of his leg are restricted, he is limping because of the injury and he cannot squat or walk properly without the support. He has to suffer this inconvenience through out his life, as such, the compensation awarded is inadequate. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company is that claimant sustained only one fracture and the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,15,000/-, which cannot be said to be unreasonable. 11. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 12. The Tribunal having considered the entire evidence on record, awarded Rs.25,000/- towards medicines, treatment and extra – nourishment, Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.75,000/- towards future loss of earnings. Claimant has sustained fracture of left patella, which is a serious injury. According to the claimant, his knee was broken into several pieces and even after the surgery and further treatment it is not completely healed. There is swelling and because of that he is unable to bend the knee or squat and movements of the leg are restricted, which he has to suffer through out his life. However, Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities and the amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded towards treatment, medicines and extra-nourishment is inadequate. In the circumstances, I hold that awarding another sum of Rs.40,000/- under both these counts i.e., towards loss of amenities in life and the medical expenses, attendant charges and extra-nourishment etc., would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only). Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty five thousand only) instead of Rs.1,15,000/-. The interest on the enhanced compensation shall be at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. It is made clear that the interest on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall be as awarded by it. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the enhanced compensation soon after its deposit. 13. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J October 29, 2010. PV