THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.591 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred aggrieved by the Judgment dated 15.10.2007 in O.P.No.586 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad. 2. The appellant herein is the claimant in the above O.P. He filed the above O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in road traffic accident occurred on 24.1.2004 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Maruthi Car bearing No.AP- 15-V-7091. 3. In support of his claim, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and examined PW2-Dr. V. Akhilesh and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 4. The Tribunal below while evaluating the evidence on record awarded total compensation of Rs.25,000/- under all heads against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said compensation, the claimant preferred the present CMA. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant mainly urged that the Tribunal Below without taking into consideration Ex.A3-wound certificate and the evidence of P.W.2-Doctor, who treated P.W.1, granted very meager compensation, which needs further enhancement. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance-Company while attacking the said argument and supporting the finding of the Tribunal below urged that the compensation awarded is very reasonable and the Tribunal below well discussed the evidence on record, in particular the evidence of P.W.2 and granted compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled for any enhancement of compensation? 8. As can be seen from the order under appeal, the accident occurred on 24.1.2004 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Maruthi Car bearing No.AP-15-V-7091. The factum of accident is not in dispute. The Insurance Company was permitted to take all the defences open under Section 170 Motor Vehicles Act in the Tribunal below. The appellant-injured while examining himself as P.W.1 examined P.W.2-Dr.V. Akhilesh. As per Ex.A3-wound certificate, it was issued by P.W.2. In a case of this nature, the medical evidence has paramount importance. While granting compensation, the Tribunal below suspected the bonafides of P.W.2 and discussed the evidentiary value of P.W.2 elicited during the cross-examination and awarded meagre amount of Rs.25,000/-, without going into the recitals in Ex.A3-wound certificate issued by the Medical Officer working in the Government Hospital, Nizamabad. Therefore, it is to be considered as to whether the evidence of P.W.2 and the documentary evidence viz., Ex.A3 attach any amount of significance for grant of compensation. 9. According to P.W.2, he is working since 2001 and on 24.1.2004 he examined Mohd. Mannan (P.W.1) and found the following injuries: 1. Fracture both bones of the right leg; 2. Fracture scapular of the right shoulder; 3. Fracture lower third radial left; 4. Fracture lateral condylor of the right leg; 5. Multiple abrasions on the right leg; 6. Multiple abrasions on right side elbow. As per his opinion, the injuries 1 to 4 are grievous and injuries 5 and 6 are simple in nature. In Ex.A3 certificate, he certified that he examined P.W.1. He also stated in his evidence that he was giving evidence basing on Ex.A3 wound certificate. Though P.W.3 was subjected to thorough cross-examination, he withstood the same and asserted that the recitals in Ex.A3 relate to the injured-P.W.1. His evidence cannot be discredited on the simple reason that he did not bring the case sheet and he did not note the particulars of x-ray reports etc. On flimsy grounds, the Tribunal below discredited the evidence of P.W.2. However, the Tribunal below granted some compensation for the injuries sustained by P.W.1. When the Tribunal below did not give any credit to the evidence of P.W.2, it ought not to have granted compensation. Having appreciated Ex.A3 document in one breathe and discarded the same in another breathe, without any positive finding, in my view, the same is unsustainable. 10. Taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.2 in particular the recitals in Ex.A3 the petitioner sustained four grievous injuries and two simple injuries, I am of the view that granting of compensation of Rs.15,000/- to each grievous injury besides granting Rs.3,000/- to each simple injury is just and reasonable to meet the ends of justice. Further, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below towards pain and suffering is unreasonable and therefore, it can be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. Insofar as the amount awarded by the Tribunal viz., Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, medical expenses and extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings, is concerned, it stands confirmed. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.25,000/- is enhanced to Rs.91,000/-. 11. With these modifications, the appeal is partly allowed. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. ______________ K.S.APPA RAO,J Dt.07.07.2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.591 of 2008 7.7.2011