HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.3337 OF 2002 Dated: 29.04.2010 BETWEEN: Donthi Sekhar .. Appellant And V.Pedda Veerareddy and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.3337 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the injured claimant challenging the award, dated 31.07.2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Kadapa in O.P.No.525 of 1996. 2. Challenge to the award is regarding the quantum of compensation on the ground that it is not just and reasonable and requires enhancement. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent- insurance company. 4. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant received injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred at about 8.30 PM on 31.03.1996 wherein the lorry bearing No. ATA 1589 dashed the ambassador car bearing No. TSI 4645, which the appellant was driving. As against the claim of Rs.1,25,000/- made by the appellant, the learned Tribunal granted Rs.13,000/- as compensation. 5. The learned Tribunal recorded a categorical finding on merits that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and consequently held that the owner of the offending vehicle and the second respondent –insurance company with which the said vehicle was insured at material time are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation which finding became final and needs no interference in this appeal. 6. The Ex.A.3 wound certificate indicates that the appellant received four injuries. Though, it is mentioned in the injury certificate that the injuries received by the appellant are simple in nature, PW.3-doctor G.Vasanth Kumar, Orthopaedic Surgeon stated in his evidence that on 26.11.1996 he examined the appellant and found fracture of left ileum and left public bone extending into the left hip joint and there is shortening of left lower limb by 1”. According to the doctor, the appellant sustained permanent disability on account of the fracture to the left lower limb and it is about 40% which is partial permanent in nature and he issued Ex.A.4-disability certificate to that effect. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent- insurance company would submit that PW.3, the doctor had not treated the appellant, therefore, no reliance can be placed on his evidence and also that he is not competent to issue the disability certificate. Absolutely I see no force in the contention urged by the learned counsel. There is no suggestion to PW.3 that he is not competent to issue disability certificate. Admittedly, PW.3, the doctor stated in the cross examination that the three injuries noted in Ex.A.3 wound certificate relate to the fracture of left limb sustained by the appellant which ultimately resulted in disability. It was not suggested to PW.3 that the appellant did not sustain any disability. It was only suggested to him that the disability mentioned in Ex.A.4-disability certificate is on higher side. 8. Basing on the above said evidence, though there is no material to show that the disability sustained by the appellant ultimately resulted in loss of earnings to him, the fact remains that the evidence on record clearly goes to show that the appellant sustained permanent disability. Therefore, the learned Tribunal instead of granting Rs.10,000/- for all four simple injuries sustained by the appellant in lumpsum, should have granted some amount towards permanent disability sustained by the appellant. Therefore, in this appeal, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is granted towards permanent disability and an amount of Rs.3,000/- x 3 = Rs.9,000/- is granted to three simple injuries sustained by the appellant. The amount of Rs.2,000/- granted towards paid and suffering being very low is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- in this appeal. Since there are no medical bills, Rs.1,000/- granted by the learned Tribunal towards medical expenses needs no interference. Thus, in all the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/- + Rs.9,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.1,000/- = Rs.45,000/-. Therefore, the enhancement would be Rs.45,000/- (minus) Rs.13,000/- = Rs.32,000/-. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 9. With the above enhancement in the compensation, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 29.04.2010 Kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.3337 OF 2002 Dated: 29.04.2010