HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A.No.403 of 2005 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2004 in O.P.No.1022 of 2002 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the claim petition was partly allowed awarding total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, the clamant filed this appeal inter alia on the following grounds: That the Tribunal erred in awarding meagre amount of Rs.60,000/- towards permanent disability in spite of filing Ex.A9-permanent disability certificate issued by PW2 who treated the appellant; that the Tribunal erred in fixing the age of the petitioner as 45 years instead of 36 years; that the Tribunal failed to assess the earning capacity and the future loss of earnings of the appellant; that the Tribunal erred in awarding less amount under the heads of transportation to hospital, pain and suffering, medical expenditure, extra nourishment and loss of earnings. 2. The parties herein shall be referred to as they were arrayed in the O.P. 3. The brief facts that led to the present appeal are that on 21.10.2001 the petitioner was going to Kalwakurthy from her village by Jeep bearing No.APM-3393 and when the Jeep reached near Timmanapally village, a lorry bearing No.AP-26V-5659 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the jeep from opposite direction, as a result, the petitioner received grievous injuries and one inmate died on the spot and other inmates received injuries. The petitioner received fracture of right clavicle bone, fracture of right side 2nd to 7th rib bones and other multiple injuries all over the body. Then the petitioner was shifted to Kalwakurthy Government hospital and later she was admitted in a private hospital as inpatient and underwent treatment. P.S. Midjil registered a case in Crime No.47 of 2001 under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC against the driver of the lorry. The petitioner was aged 38 years, working as Anganwadi teacher and earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month at the time of the accident. 4. The first respondent-owner of the lorry was set exparte. The second respondent-insurance company filed counter denying the averments of the petition and stated that the petitioner has to prove her age, income, injuries sustained by her, treatment undergone by her, possession of valid driving licence by the lorry driver and subsistence of insurance policy at the time of the accident. It is further stated that the accident occurred due to collision between the two vehicles and there might have also contributory negligence on the part of jeep and therefore, non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the Jeep is bad in law. 5. Basing on the pleadings of both the sides, the relevant issues were framed as to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the accident lorry and as to the entitlement of the petitioner and the liability of the respondents to pay the compensation. 6. During the course of trial, the petitioner herself was examined as PW.1 besides examining a Doctor as PW.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.14 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent, no witnesses were examined but Ex.B.1- insurance policy was marked. 7. The Tribunal after taking into account the evidence and other material on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs..1,00,000/- under different heads. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the claimant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner in his arguments reiterated the contentions which are raised in the grounds of appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 10. It is to be seen that the Tribunal by taking into consideration Exs.A.2, A.4, A.7 and A.8 fixed the age of the petitioner at 45 years at the time of the accident. Ex.A.12 indicates that she was working as Anganwadi teacher and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Ex.A.3 indicates that the petitioner received grievous injuries. Ex.A.4 indicates that the petitioner was admitted in Maruthi hospital on 22.10.2001 and she underwent treatment as out-patient. PW.2, who is Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon of Maruthi hospital, stated that the petitioner received injuries in the accident and underwent treatment at Maruthi hospital. He identified Exs.A.4, A.5, A.6 and A.10 besides stating that he issued the disability certificate- Ex.A.9. According to Ex.A.9, the permanent disability is to the extent of 25%. Though the petitioner claimed Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenditure and extra nourishments she produced bills amounting to Rs.5,000/-. The Tribunal ultimately awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-under different heads to the petitioner. However, in view of the facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that the Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering instead of Rs.10,000/-, which is just and reasonable compensation and the same is hereby awarded. Except the enhancement towards pain and suffering, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the total compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,15,000/-. 11. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is disposed of and the appellant- petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,15,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifteen thousand) only with interest at 7.5% per annum in so far as the enhanced compensation is concerned. No order as to costs. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 22-10-2010 Stp