HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3582 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved against the orders passed in O.P.No.163 of 2000, dated 30-05-2003, on the file of II Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘lower Court’), the present C.M.A is filed. 2. The counsel appearing for the appellant mainly urged that the lower Court without applying multiplier granted the compensation with meagre amount, which is not sustainable. 3. Now the point is, whether the petitioner is entitled for any enhancement of compensation? 4. The petitioner filed O.P.No.163 of 2000 claiming compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident on 20-10-1999. The factum of the accident is not disputed. The lower Court while assessed the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the documentary evidence Exs.A.4 to A.9 granted compensation of Rs.1,11,000/- on all the heads. In order to prove the injuries, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2- Dr.K.Ramakanth Rao. Admittedly, the petitioner is aged about 19 years on the date of accident and he is a Turner working in a private firm. In proof of the earnings of the injured, he filed Ex.A.6-salary certificate. However for the reasons best known to the petitioner, nobody connected to Ex.A.6 was examined to prove the salary of the injured. Ex.A.4 is the discharge summary issued by the CDR hospital, which reads that injuries sustained by petitioner are grievous in nature. According to P.W.1 he sustained fracture of right maxilla, fracture of right frontal bone and fracture of both bones of right forearm and several bleeding injuries. Soon-after the accident he was shifted to Bhuvanagiri rural area hospital and from there to Gandhi hospital. Thereafter referred to CDR hospital for expert treatment. The Doctor who treated P.W.1 was examined as P.W.2. According to him he examined P.W.1 on 08-08-2002 and found the following injuries. (1) Head injury; (2) fracture of both bones of right fore arm lower 1/3rd with Brachtel Plexis. 5. As per Ex.A.4-discharge summary, P.W.1 sustained head injury and fracture of right fore arm both bones lower 3rd for which Orif was done. The respondents did not dispute the avocation of the injured. According to P.W.1 he is a Turner working in a private firm. It was evidenced by the salary certificate-Ex.A.6. Ex.A.4 discloses that petitioner cannot carry any weight with his right hand due to the said disability. The lower Court awarded Rs.60,000/- for the said disability. In my view while taking into consideration the age of the injured being 19 years and as he being a Turner and as he deprived of his future earnings granting compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against the award of Rs.60,000/- granted by the lower Court towards disability would be just and reasonable. The lower Court awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- for head injury. As per wound certificate Ex.A.4 he sustained fracture of right maxilla and fracture of right frontal bone. Therefore granting an amount of Rs.5,000/- for the said injury is just and reasonable. The lower Court awarded an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards pain and suffering, extra nourishment, transportation charges. The aforesaid amount is very meagre and therefore granting of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, extra nourishment, transportation charges is just and necessary besides granting an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards medical bill. In total the appellant is granted compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- in stead of Rs.1,11,000/- granted by the lower Court. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum. 9. Accordingly, with the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO 24th March, 2011 VJL