THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY MACMA No.3439 of 2009 ORDER: Appellant and about 60 others engaged a bus bearing No.AP-25-T-769 owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent to go on pilgrimage from Nirmal to Tirupathi on 05.03.995. When the bus reached Vellur village in Medak District, it met with an accident resulting in the death of eight (8) persons and injuries to several others. Appellant filed O.P.No.909 of 1995 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Nizamabad, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation. It was pleaded that the appellant received injuries on various parts of the body, and pain and suffering was caused to her. The O.P. was opposed by the 2nd respondent. Through its order dated 29.10.2001, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.500/- as compensation. The petitioner seeks enhancement of the same. Heard Sri Ch.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, and Smt A.Jayanthi, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. To prove her case, the petitioner deposed as P.W.1 and had also examined P.W.2. Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of respondents, no witnesses were examined but Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. Serious controversy existed as to whether the appellant was a passenger in the bus at all. After discussing the matter at length and taking the evidence of P.W.2 another passenger who was awarded compensation in another O.P., the Tribunal recorded a finding to the effect that the petitioner was a passenger in the bus. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal felt that the appellant failed to prove the nature of injuries or the expenditure incurred therefor. Exs.A.3 and A.4 are the prescriptions given by one Dr.CRV Pratap Reddy. The only ground on which the Tribunal did not take them into account is that the Doctor was not examined. Howsoever advisable it may be, to ensure that the Doctor, who gave the prescriptions, is examined as a witness, the difficulty for an illiterate woman hailing from a village to procure the presence of a Doctor, cannot be ignored. Though the injuries suffered by the appellant are not that serious as to have any external manifestation the very fact that she had to receive treatment and had to approach the Tribunal for compensation disclose that they were not in consequential. Taking these aspects into consideration this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to Rs.7,500/- as compensation. The award of Rs.7,500/- would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the CMA is allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs.7,500/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7% per annum. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 25th September 2009 CVRK