THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.718 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 07.09.2007, in O.P.No.364 of 2005 on the file of the learned Special Judge for the trial of offences under Scheduleld Castes & Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad, wherein the said application filed by the appellant herein, seeking compensation, was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.1,10,750/-with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of the petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Appellant herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.03.2005. According to the appellant, on that day, he was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP-28V-7266 to go to Medchal and that a lorry bearing No.KA 01A 7992, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the auto resulting in multiple fracture injuries to the appellant. A case in Cr.No.74 of 2005 was registered against the driver of the lorry. According to the claimant, he sustained fracture of the left tibia and pelvis besides injury on the right thigh and nerve injury on the right leg. He claims that he was earning Rs.3000/- per month by doing labour work and because of the accident, he lost his earning capacity. The 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. 2nd respondent-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability. 4. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked on behalf of the claimant and no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents, but Ex.B1-copy of the policy was marked. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and the said finding has become final as no appeal is filed by the insurer. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,10,750/- towards compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. Not satisfied with the award, claimant filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the medical evidence on record shows that the injuries have resulted in 40% permanent disability, the Tribunal failed to award any compensation in that regard. He would further submit that the compensation awarded under the other heads is also low and inadequate. 7. The evidence on record would disclose that the claimant suffered two fracture injuries on left tibia and pelvis besides a nerve injury and another injury on the right thigh. Ex.A4-discharge summary issued by the Health Care hospital, Hyderabad would show that the claimant was admitted in the hospital on 30.03.2005 and discharged on 13.04.2005. Ex.A5 is the discharge summary issued by the Mediciti hospital, Hyderabad, which shows that the claimant was admitted in the hospital on 30.04.2005 and discharged on 27.05.2005. Ex.A6 is another discharge summary issued by Mediciti hospital, which shows that the claimant was again admitted in the hospital on 29.06.2005 and discharged on 25.07.2005. Thus as per Exs.A4 to 6, claimant was inpatient in the hospital for about a total period of three months. 8. The testimony of P.W.2, who was an Orthopedic Surgeon in Mediciti hospital, would show that he treated the claimant and performed surgery on 25.04.2005 and again on 09.05.2005 and that skin grafting was also done. P.W.2 further stated that due to the nerve injury the claimant suffered from foot drop problem and he cannot walk properly. According to P.W.2, it was permanent and partial disability to an extent of 40%. P.W.2 did not however issue any certificate of disability. Claimant filed Ex.A9-certificate of permanent disability, said to have been issued by the Medical Board, wherein it is stated that the post traumatic foot drop of right lower limb is a permanent disability of 40%. However, none connected with the said certificate-Ex.A9 is examined. The contents of Ex.A9 are therefore not duly proved. Claimant has therefore failed to adduce legally admissible evidence in support of his claim that the injury has resulted in permanent disability to the extent of 40%. The question of estimating the loss of earning capacity on account of any such disability does not therefore arise in the absence of any evidence to show that there has been loss of earning capacity on account of the said injury. On the other hand, P.W.2 admitted in the cross-examination that except one injury, the other injuries, including fractures, are healed and bones are united. The Tribunal, however, awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- each for the two fractures and Rs.5000/- each for the simple injuries, total Rs.50,000/-, without disclosing as to the sub-head under which the said amount was awarded. Inasmuch as no appeal is preferred by the respondents, the amount of Rs.50,000/- granted by the Tribunal is left undisturbed. 9. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- towards pain and suffering. Claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.5000/- for each of the three grievous injuries i.e. two fractures and one nerve injury and Rs.1000/- for the simple injury on the thigh, which comes to Rs.16,000/- towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.47,750/- towards medical expenses, which is duly covered by the medical bills-Ex.A11. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.6000/- towards loss of earnings. Having regard to the fact that the claimant was in hospital for about three months and in view of the nature of the injuries sustained by him and having regard to the claim that he was earning Rs.3000/- per month, claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings. The amount of Rs.1000/- each granted by the Tribunal towards transport charges and extra nourishment is considered to be very low, having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained; the treatment undergone and the length of hospitalization. In the circumstances, it is held that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- towards transport charges and Rs.5000/- towards extra nourishment. Claimant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges, in view of the fact that he was in hospital for a period of about three months with such injuries which must have required him to seek the assistance of some one to attend on him. Claimant is therefore held entitled for a total compensation of Rs1,43,750/-, which can be rounded off to Rs.1,44,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of he petition. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 10. In the result, appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th September, 2011 Tsy