HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.3418 of 2011 Date: December 09, 2011 Between: Waddee Ashappa … Appellant And 1. Smt. Satyavathi & another … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.3418 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the award passed in O.P. No.903 of 1998 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, questioning the quantum of compensation by the claimant. 2. A claim application was filed for compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh alleging that on 08.7.1995 at about 9.00 a.m. the petitioner was waiting at Kollur bus stage to go to Chinna Porla village and at that time a tractor and trolley bearing No.AP M7718 and 7719 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, as a result of which he received multiple injuries and was in hospital as inpatient from 09.7.1995 to 24.7.1995. He spent money for treatment and suffered disability. The second respondent is the insurance company and the first respondent is the owner of the tractor and trailer. 3. The claim was opposed on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having any valid driving licence and the petitioner is also put to strict proof of the rashness and negligence. 4. After considering the material on record, the lower Tribunal found that the incident as stated by the petitioner is true and granted a compensation of Rs.22,250/- payable by the respondents jointly. The insurance company has not filed any appeal. 5. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? 6. Point: Ex.A-3, wound certificate, goes to show that the petitioner has sustained three simple injuries and one grievous injury which is a fracture of left superior and inferior Rami and Pubis. The lower Tribunal has also accepted the fact that the petitioner was inpatient for 16 days. However, the lower Tribunal taking into consideration the nature of injuries granted a compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and a sum of Rs.2,250/- towards loss of earnings. 7. Evidently, when the factum of admission of the petitioner in the hospital as inpatient is not disputed. The lower Tribunal has not granted any compensation for medical expenses. The petitioner claimed medical expenses to a tune of Rs.20,000/- for which there is no proof. But the fact remains that the treatment of the petitioner and his confinement in the hospital are not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner causes at least temporary disability for some time and the grant of loss of earnings only for one month does not appear to be reasonable. Therefore, taking into consideration the nature of the injuries and the nature of treatment suffered by the petitioner, I feel ends of justice would be met when compensation is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. 8. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. _____________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J. Date: December 09, 2011. BSB