IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1767 OF 2003 Between : T.Govindu .... APPELLANT A N D M.Mohan Rao and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1767 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, ‘the Act’) is directed against the common order and decree, dated 28.02.2002 in M.V.O.P.No.69 of 2000 (along with M.V.O.P.No.120 of 2000) on the file of III Additional District Judge- cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, whereby a compensation of Rs.20,853/- was awarded to the claimant as against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner filed M.V.O.P.No.69 of 2000 on the file of III Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. 4. The Tribunal, after an elaborate enquiry while awarding various amounts under different heads, held that the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards grievous injury. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.O.P.No.69 of 2000, the petitioner filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meager and not justified. 5. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation 6. As seen from the record, the two injured in the subject accident filed two O.Ps. i.e., O.P.Nos.69 and 120 of 2000, claiming compensation. The petitioner in O.P.No.69 of 2000 has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to para No.13 of the impugned judgment and the observations therein. 8. A perusal of the order reveals that the injured himself was examined as P.W.1 besides examining P.W.3, the Doctor, who issued the medical certificate. As per the evidence of P.W.3-Doctor, he examined P.W.1 and found communicated fracture, shaft femur right side and another fracture medial malleolus with subluxation of right ankle. His evidence further reveals that on perusal of X-ray, the injured was suffering from right ankle pain due to arthritis. 9. In view of evidence of P.W.3, it is clear that P.W.1 sustained two fractures. The same was not disputed in pursuance of the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.A.3-Wound Certificate. Basing on the evidence of P.W.3 coupled with Ex.A.3-wound certificate, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards fracture which is very meager are not just and reasonable. Since, the injured is the driver of the vehicle, granting an amount of R.25,000/- against the award of Rs.5000/- for the grievous injuries as spoken to by P.W.1 and authenticated by P.W.3 through Ex.A.3-wound certificate. The other findings of the Tribunal and the amount awarded under other heads hold good. 10 According, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing compensation from Rs.20,853/- to Rs.40,853/-. The additional amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of O.P. before the Tribunal till realization. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J FEBRUARY 03, 2011. YVL