THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1846 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is filed by the claimant against the order dated 19.06.2004 in O.P.No.388 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, questioning the quantum of compensation. According to the case of the petitioner, on 07.01.1999 when the petitioner was going on scooter bearing No.AAJ 3654, the tractor bearing No.AP 25 D 3541 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter, as a result of which, he received multiple injuries and sustained fracture of the skull and also the fore arm. He was said to have been treated at Government Hospital, Nizamabad and thereafter at Gandhi Hospital and he spent nearly Rs.1,00,000/- for medical treatment and suffered disability. The vehicle was insured with the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent is the owner. The respondent No.2 remained ex parte. The 1st respondent filed counter putting the petitioner to strict proof of the petition averments and denying the nature of accident, validity of driving license of the driver and its liability. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal accepted the cause of incident, but, however, granted a compensation of Rs.44,500/- and the insurance company does not dispute about its liability. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that from the material on record, it is quite clear that the petitioner has received two grievous injuries, one fracture to the right forearm and also an injury to the parietal bone and this was accepted by the lower Tribunal and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was granted towards the pain and suffering apart from a sum of Rs.1,000/- each for two abrasions. The lower Tribunal also granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of shock, pain and suffering and also discomfort. The said amount of Rs.10,000/- is, therefore, taken as compensation towards loss of earnings and disability during the period of treatment. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contends that Exs.A-4 to A-27 show that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was spent for treatment and the fact that the petitioner was treated at Yashoda Hospital for longer time cannot be ignored and, therefore, the claim of the appellant is that grant of Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses is meagre. Evidently, the petitioner was resident of Nizamabad and the documents filed by him show that he was treated for sufficiently longer time at Yashoda hospital, which is proved by the medical bills, though the discharge summary Exs.A-42 and A-43 also proves the same. The evidence of P.W.1 about the particulars of that treatment was not seriously disputed in the cross-examination. Therefore, the non- examination of the persons, who gave the certificates, may not be very much fatal. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the nature of the injuries and the treatment undergone by the petitioner, I feel the ends of justice would meet, if a compensation of Rs.75,000/- is granted instead of Rs.44,500/-, which was granted by the lower Tribunal. The interest shall be carried at 7.5% on the enhanced compensation amount. With the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 29-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 1846 of 2011 DATE: 29-08-2011 MR