HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.278 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the award and decree dated 28.02.2007 passed in O.P.No.2258 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present appeal has been preferred by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation. Appellant herein is the petitioner in O.P.No.2258 of 2003. He filed the petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident that occurred on 12.07.2002. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.64,500/- towards compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly urged that without assessing the evidence on record, the Tribunal granted only Rs.20,000/- towards second operation for removal of implants, which is very meager, and therefore, the same needs enhancement. He also urged that though the appellant claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.64,500/-, and as such, the same is quite unreasonable. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents urged that even though the petitioner has not claimed any amount towards transportation, damage to clothes and attendant charges, the Tribunal grossly erred in granting compensation on that score, which is not sustainable. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? In order to prove the accident, the petitioner/injured examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. The factum of accident is not in dispute. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that he sustained four fractures in the accident and was admitted in the hospital where he incurred heavy expenditure towards treatment. In order to corroborate this aspect, the petitioner filed Exs.A3 to A13. A perusal of Exs.A3 to A13 reveals that the petitioner sustained four fractures and the same is proved by the evidence of PW.2-Dr.B.Arun Kumar. According to PW.3, one of the employee in the office where the petitioner was working at the time of the accident deposed that the petitioner was a temporary employee getting salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. Though the petitioner is a private employee, there is no authenticated proof that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as stated by PW.3. The compensation of Rs.4,500/- granted by the Tribunal towards loss of earnings is not assessed on the basis of the income of the injured and, therefore, the same is disallowed. Coming to the nature of the injuries, the evidence of PW.2 is of paramount importance in deciding the gravity of the injuries sustained by the petitioner. According to PW.2, he treated the injured on 15.07.2002 at Challa Nursing Home and noted the following injuries :- (1) Wrist fracture both sides (2) Right thigh fracture (3) Right knee fracture and (4) Crush injury left foot. As seen from the evidence of PW.2, all the four injuries sustained by the petitioner are on vital organs of the body and grievous in nature and, therefore, they will cause hindrance to the petitioner, who was aged 28 years as on the date of the accident. To lead a normal life, the crush injury to the left foot will hamper the movement of the injured. As per the evidence of PW.2, he operated the injured on 17.07.2002 for right thigh and right knee fracture and discharged on 24.07.2002. According to him, interlocking nailing right fumur and buttresh plating to right tibia was done by two separate surgeries and that the petitioner has to undergo one more surgery for removal of inplants and it may cost around Rs.30,000/-. PW.2 also asserted that the petitioner was suffering from knee movements and disability to an extent of 10%. He also asserted that the petitioner cannot sit and squat freely with the ailments. Therefore, viewed from any angle, in view of the assertions made by PW.2, the doctor who treated the petitioner, the injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature and that he cannot sit and squat freely with the ailments, and therefore, granting of Rs.20,000/- for each grievous injury is just and reasonable. Thus, an amount of Rs.80,000/- is granted towards four grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner. Further, the compensation of Rs.15,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is very meager and, therefore, granting of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering would be just and reasonable and, accordingly, the same is granted. The impugned order discloses that the petitioner produced number of medical receipts and bills of Chella Nursing Home, but the Tribunal has not taken them into consideration. However, presuming that the petitioner might have spent atleast Rs.10,000/- towards entire medical expenses, granted Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses. Pursuant to the two receipts issued by CDR as per Ex.A9 produced by the petitioner, the Tribunal granted that amount of Rs.7,000/- towards medical treatment at CDR Hospital. In all, the Tribunal granted Rs.17,000/- (Rs.10,000 + 7,000) towards medical expenses and the same holds good. It is an admitted fact that inplants were inserted while conducting surgery. As per the evidence of PW.2, the petitioner has to again undergo surgery for removal of inplants and the same is not denied by the respondents. PW.2, in his cross-examination, clarified that one-day or the other the inplants should be removed, and therefore, it is necessary to remove the inplants in due course of time by conducting another surgery, for which the petitioner has to spend some amounts. Thus, the amount of Rs.20,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards 2nd operation for removal of inplants is enhanced to Rs.30,000/- in the circumstances of the case on hand. The Tribunal granted Rs.1,000/- towards transportation, Rs.1,000/- towards damage to clothes, Rs.3,000/- towards attendant charges even though the petitioner has not claimed under those heads. Therefore, these amounts are disallowed, while confirming the compensation of Rs.3,000/- granted towards extra nourishment. Thus, in total, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.80,000 + 20,000 + 17,000 + 30,000 + 3,000). The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed in part. No costs. ____________________ JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO 08.06.2011 v v