THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A.No. 3721 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P. No. 419 of 1999, dated 29.5.2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur, the present C.M.A. is filed. Appellant is the petitioner before the tribunal below in M.V.O.P.No. 419 of 1999. The petitioner filed O.P. claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident dated 16.3.1999. Before the tribunal below, in order to prove the injuries and the expenses incurred towards the treatment, while himself was examined as P.W.1 and examined P.W.2 Dr. M. Seshaiah and P.W.3 M. Joji Babu and filed Exs.A-1 to A-9. Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of the charge sheet. The tribunal below having evaluated the evidence on record both oral and documentary granted a sum of Rs. 66,825/- under different heads. Aggrieved with the same, the present C.M.A. is filed mainly urging that the tribunal below failed to appreciate the evidence and granted only meager compensation of Rs. 66,825/-. Now the point for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. Admittedly, P.W.1 is the injured. The factum of accident is not disputed by the insurance company. The tribunal below held that the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation payable to the petitioner. Ex.X-1 is the case sheet maintained by the Govt. General Hospital, Guntur relates to P.W.1, which is a crucial document while granting compensation. As per Ex.X-1, P.W.1 admitted in the Govt. General Hospital, Guntur on 16.3.1999 and discharged on 26.3.1999. According to Ex.X-1, the petitioner sustained injury to liver and fracture of right scapula. That apart, wound certificate is also filed and marked as Ex.A-3. It discloses that he sustained injuries to right side ribs also. The injury to liver is described as liver architecture disturbed with ascites. Ex.A-3 is certified copy of the wound certificate, reads that the X-ray of chest disclosed 7th and 8th ribs on right side are fractured. According to P.W.1, after discharge from the hospital, he took follow up treatment in private nursing home at Guntur and filed bunch of medical bills marked as Ex.A-4. The total bills comes to Rs. 20,825/-. All these medical bills relate to the period between 28.3.1999 to 12.11.1999. The tribunal below granted a sum of Rs. 20,825/- as compensation for medical expenses. The tribunal below granted compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards the traveling expenses, but the tribunal below granted only Rs. 4,000/- as extra nourishment charges. Admittedly, the injuries sustained by P.W.1 are grievous in nature and therefore, granting of Rs. 10,000/- towards the extra nourishment is just and reasonable. Admittedly, the injured is a R.M.P. Doctor, and his earning capacity is fixed as Rs. 2,500/- per month by the tribunal below. Though there is no evidence on record that petitioner underwent treatment till November, 1999, the last bill Ex.A-4 is dated 12.11.1999. The accident is dated 16.3.1999. Therefore, the loss of income for six months of P.W.1 may be taken which arrived at Rs. 15,000/-. Thus the damages that the petitioner sustained would come to Rs. 15,000/-. P.W.1 stated that the surgery for intestinal obstruction costs about Rs. 10,000/- if it is done in a private hospital. The tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 22,000/- for the pain and suffering and for the future operation. The said amount is very much meager in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. The reason being even as per evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is a slight restriction on right shoulder movement and restriction is less than 10% and that P.W.1 is getting abdominal pain occasionally and the said pain is on account of development of adhesions of intestinal parts due to liver injury and that surgical intervention becomes necessary only when obstruction is caused in intestine. P.W.1 is likely to develop intestinal obstruction in future. Liver injury healed with adhesions and P.W.1 may or may not develop intestinal obstructions, but possibility is there. Thus, there is a risk of P.W.1 developing intestinal obstructions on account of the injury to liver. Therefore, while taking into consideration, the gravity of the injury in particular the liver granting of Rs. 20,000/- towards the pain and suffering is quite just and reasonable. As per Ex.A-3 wound certificate, X-ray of the right shoulder revealed no bone injury. But, however, granting of Rs. 5,000/- towards the said injury is just and reasonable. Further more, chest X-ray reveals that 7th and 8th ribs on right side are fractured. Therefore, further granting of Rs. 20,000/- is just and reasonable. In total a sum of Rs. 97,825/- is granted against the compensation of Rs. 66,825/- granted by the tribunal below. With this modification, the C.M.A. is allowed and the compensation of Rs. 97,825/- is rounded to Rs. 98,000/-. ___________________ 24.3.2011 CHV