IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWNETY FIRST (21ST) DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.2957 of 2005 Between: Tanikonda Mallikarjuna …Petitioner And: T.C. Raman & another …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2957 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.11.2004 in MVOP No.198 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum V Additional District Judge [FTC], Ongole, wherein the claim petition was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.13,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. 2. None appears for the appellant/claimant. Heard the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record. 3. The appellant herein filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.12.1999. According to him on that day at about 6 p.m. while he was returning from Ramayapatnam along with other students and teachers in a tractor and it was stopped due to puncher and while he was crossing NH-5 road to purchase eatables, one Tata Sumo came in high speed and dashed against him and he fell down and received injuries on the right thigh. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Ulavapadu and thereafter to Ongole where an iron rod was inserted in his right thigh. He was inpatient for one month in the hospital. He claimed to be a student, aged 12 years. 4. The 2nd respondent/Insurer filed a counter opposing the application. 5. The Tribunal framed the following points for consideration. i) Whether the petitioner received injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo bearing No.TN 01 J 5889 by its driver? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim for any compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident? If so, to what amount and from whom? iii) To what relief? 6. PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the respondents. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.13,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. Not satisfied with the award, the claimant filed the present appeal. 7. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo by its driver has become final, as no appeal is preferred by the owner or insurer. The finding of the Tribunal that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation is also not disputed. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation? If so, to what extent? 8. PW.1 testified that he sustained two injuries, including fracture on the right thigh. PW.3 the doctor who examined PW.1 and issued Ex.A.3 wound certificate deposed that PW.1 sustained contusion 6 x 6 cm on the right occipital region and deformity and swelling on the right thigh and the X-ray reveals fracture of right femur upper ½. The evidence on record showed that the claimant was hospitalized and an operation was also performed for insertion of iron rod. Though there is no evidence regarding any disability resulting from the said injury, the fact, however, remains that the claimant must have undergone considerable amount of pain and suffering on account of the fracture injury. The Tribunal failed to award any amount as compensation for pain and suffering or for hospital expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- for simple injury and Rs.10,000/- for the grievous injury and Rs.1000/- for expenses. The claimant has to necessarily undergo an operation for removal of the rod, which is already inserted, for which he has to incur some expenses. 9. In the circumstances, it is considered just and proper to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for extra nourishment and attendant charges during the period of hospitalization and Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses. In the circumstances, it is held that the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand only) (apart from the compensation of Rs.13,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal) with interest at 9% per annum from the date of appeal, till the date of realization. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 21.10.2009 bss