HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2837 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in M.O.P. No.497 of 2000 vide award dated 27-06-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, claimant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The driver, owner and insurer of the Maruthi Van/Car bearing No.AP31 – M – 5297 involved in the accident are respondent Nos.1 to 3 respectively in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 28-05-1999 at about 12-00 noon while she was proceeding to her office, near Gothi Sons, Maruthi Car bearing No.AP31 – M –5297 belonging to respondent No.2 and being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and high speed, dashed against her, as a result she sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam, where she took treatement as inpatient. Hence, she claimed a compensation of Rs.80,000/- for the injuries sustained by her. 5. Respondent No.1, the driver of the offending vehicle, did not file counter, as such, his right to file counter was forfeited by the Tribunal. 6. Respondent No.2, the owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte. 7. Respondent No.3, insurer of the offending vehicle, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant and also its liability for payment of compensation. 8. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP 31 M 5297 (Van) by its driver ? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation if so, to what amount and from whom ? 3) To what relief ?” 9. To prove her case, claimant got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the insurance company, except marking Ex.B-1, no oral evidence was adduced. 10. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the claimant against all the respondents for payment of compensation jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant preferred this appeal. 11. Since none of the respondents preferred any appeal or cross-objections, there is no need to decide the question of proving the accident and their liability for payment of compensation. 12. Now the only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is inadequate ? 13. The claim of the claimant is that she sustained fracture of right shoulder and serious injury to spinal card. The Tribunal found that there was no injury to the spinal card, as the medical certificate did not reveal the same. In case, claimant sustained fracture or grievous injury to the spinal card, there was no possibility of her coming out of hospital within six days of the accident and joining the office within a fortnight as stated by the learned counsel for the claimant. From the above, it is clear that the injury to the spinal card particularly fracture is unacceptable. However, the material available on record and the award impugned show that claimant sustained a grievous injury to her right shoulder and a simple injury and for that Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.20,000/- as under: Pain and suffering - Rs.12,000-00 Medicines and treatment - Rs. 4,000-00 Extra nourishment - Rs. 1,000-00 Loss of earnings - Rs. 3,000-00 14. In the circumstances, I am of the view that enhancing the compensation by Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) would meet the ends of justice and the same is accordingly awarded. Thus, the compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only). The claimant is entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization and she is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation soon after its deposit. 15. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 23, 2010. PV