THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.1755 of 2001 JUDGMENT: The appellant/claimant filed this appeal against the order, dated 22.03.2001 passed in M.V.O.P.No.427 of 1995 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry. The appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 19.08.1995, wherein the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 9Z 2308 was involved. Against the claim of the appellant for Rs.1,00,000/- the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation, which is assailed in this appeal on the ground that it is meagre, inadequate and requires to be enhanced. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- APSRTC. Since the appeal relates to only quantum of compensation, all the other aspects, such as, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus driver and that the Corporation is liable to pay compensation, which became final, need not be gone into in this appeal. The appellant is an agricultural labourer and resident of Sakhinetipalli, East Godavari District. She is aged about 45 years as on the date of accident. She was earning an amount of Rs.60/- per day. However, the material on record does not indicate that she sustained any disability, which resulted in loss of earnings, and therefore, no amount can be granted to the petitioner towards loss of earnings. The appellant can be compensated for the injuries suffered by her for pain and suffering etc. Ex.A.3 is the copy of wound certificate issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Razole, who examined the appellant soon after the accident and noticed the following injuries. 1. Lacerated injury 15” x 8” x skin depth over the right leg extended from the right knee joint to the base of the right great toe exposing tenderness 8 muscles, no bony injury. 2. Lacerated injury ½” x ½ x ¼” over the right heal. According to the injury certificate, the injuries are simple in nature. However, the evidence on record indicates that from the Government Hospital Razole, the appellant was shifted to Government Headquarters Hospital, Rajahmundry and she was treated there as in- patient for some time. Subsequently, she was admitted in the hospital of PW.2 for the treatment of deep lacerated wound on the right leg. According to PW.2, the appellant was suffering from chronic infected wound on her right leg for which investigations were done to find the cause of infection, and thereafter, appropriate treatment was given to her by administering anti-biotics. The appellant was treated as in- patient in the hospital from 26.8.1995 to 23.10.1995, i.e., for about two months. During the course of treatment, PW.2 called for the services of Dr. Sai Prasad, Plastic Surgeon to conduct skin grafting and debridement. According to the opinion of PW.2, the injury sustained by the appellant is grievous in nature. I have to accept the opinion of PW.2, because he is the person, who actually treated the injury. From the evidence of PW.2, it is evident that the appellant was hospitalized as in-patient for a period of two months, which is borne out from Ex.A.8-medical record, produced by him. According to PW.2 even on the date of his giving evidence, the appellant was suffering from infection and she was unable to walk and perform her day to day activities. The learned Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted only an amount of Rs.30,000/- in lump sum as compensation to the appellant. In my view the manner, in which the compensation was granted by the Tribunal, is not appropriate and the same is not supported by any reasoning. In this appeal for the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant, an amount of Rs.20,000/- can be granted. The appellant filed Ex.A.4-medical bills for an amount of Rs.13,000/-,which fact is also noticed by the learned Tribunal. This apart, the appellant filed Ex.A.6-certificte issued by Dr. Sai Prasad, who conducted skin grafting, showing that he had received an amount of Rs.3000/- from the appellant as professional charges. Similarly, PW.2 issued Ex.A.7 certificate stating that he collected an amount of Rs.5000/- from the appellant for the treatment of injuries sustained by her. There is no mention about these documents by the learned Tribunal in its order. There is nothing to doubt about the authenticity of these two documents, since they were referred to by PW.2 in his evidence stating that the appellant incurred the above expenditure. Therefore, for the medical expenses, the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.21,000/-, and for the grievous injuries sustained by her an amount of Rs.20,000/- can be granted. This apart, an amount of Rs.10,000/- can be granted towards pain and suffering and a further sum of Rs.5000/- towards extra nourishment. The appellant is entitled for a total amount of Rs.56,000/- towards compensation. The enhanced amount of compensation Rs.26,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. With the above enhancement in compensation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. ____________________ (R. KANTHA RAO, J.) 16th April, 2010 Js.