HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1867 OF 2001 Dated: 29.03.2010 BETWEEN: G.Fernandas .. Appellant And Abdul Aagha and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1867 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the injured claimant against the order, dated 22.03.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in O.P.No.20 of 1998. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/injured claimant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent – insurance company. 3. While the injured claimant was proceeding on his scooter on 30.12.1997 at about 06.00 pm, he stopped his scooter on seeing the red signal at Ranigunj Cross Roads and while his scooter was in a stationed position, a van bearing No. AHV 1159 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, rammed in to the scooter from behind, as a result, the injured fell down, received injuries and the scooter was thrown to a height of 4 feet and fell down in front of the jeep and was badly damaged. The appellant could be able to establish all these facts before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal gave a categorical finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van bearing No. AHV 1159 and held that the owner of the said vehicle and the second respondent-insurance company with which the said vehicle was insured are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and since the said finding attained finality, the said aspect need not be gone into. 4. Challenge to the award is only as to the quantum of compensation on the ground that it is grossly inadequate and deserves to be enhanced. 5. The appellant was examined himself as PW.1 before the Tribunal and marked Exs.A.1 to A.15. On behalf of the respondents, no one was examined but marked Ex.B.1 copy of the policy of insurance. Though, no injury certificate is marked, basing on Ex.A.4 prescription, Ex.A.5 –scanning report and Ex.A.6 receipt issued by the private medical practitioner, the learned Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the appellant received a simple injury. The appellant also did not examine any mechanic before the learned Tribunal to prove Ex.A.9 to A.12 – receipts issued by the mechanic showing the expenditure incurred by the appellant for getting the scooter repaired. However, the learned Tribunal by looking into Ex.A.14 photograph and considering the scooter damaged in the accident to be a very old one of 1975 make, awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards damages to the scooter. The learned Tribunal in respect of the injuries sustained by the appellant, granted an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,000/- towards medical expenses. Thus, the Tribunal granted total compensation of Rs.7,000/- against the claim of Rs.34,000/-. The learned Tribunal, however, erred in not granting any amount for the simple injury sustained by the appellant, therefore, in this appeal in addition to the amount granted by the Tribunal, an amount of Rs.3,000/- is awarded for the simple injury sustained by the appellant. Thus, the total compensation, therefore, comes to Rs.10,000/- and the enhancement would be Rs.3,000/-. 5. With the above enhancement in the compensation, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 29.03.2010 Kvrm