THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.852 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the award, dated 30.10.2002, passed in O.P.No.2185 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In this appeal, the appellant-claimant seeks to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The facts that led to the accident are not in dispute. It appears that when the claimant, who is a lady aged about 45 years and doing agricultural labour, was crossing the road, she was hit by a lorry resulting in a grievous injury. Initially, she was admitted in Government Hospital and from there, she was shifted to CDR hospital, Hyderabad. A case in Crime No.274 of 2000 was registered. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.32,500/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realisation. Not being satisfied with the said compensation, the claimant preferred this appeal seeking to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contends that the disability certificate issued by the doctor under Ex.A- 5 shows that the claimant sustained 20% disability. The doctor was examined as P.W-2 to speak about the issuance of Ex.A-5. But, from the cross-examination of P.W-2, it appears that the said certificate was issued after a lapse of more than one year and eight months from the date of the accident. On the above aspect, the Tribunal observed that the certificate issued by the doctor cannot be believed in toto, but at the same time, it placed reliance on the same certificate which speaks about the nature and gravity of the injury suffered by the claimant, and granted compensation to a tune of Rs.10,500/- towards pain and suffering. The discharge summary was marked as Ex.A-3, which would show that the claimant received fracture of right inferior public ramus. It was also pointed out by the Tribunal that from the cross-examination of the doctor-P.W-2, nothing could be elicited contradicting the testimony of the claimant. From the above, what appears is that on one hand, the Tribunal does not believe the disability certificate-Ex.A-5 issued by the doctor and on the other hand, places reliance on the same for the purpose of assessing compensation towards pain and suffering. In my opinion, both the views are incompatible to each other. However, the fact remains that the claimant was injured in a road accident and suffered a fracture of right inferior public ramus, which is a serious injury. The medical bills that were produced before the Tribunal would show that a sum of Rs.11,344/- was spent by the claimant for medicines. In such a case, I am of the view that the Tribunal simply made a guess work and awarded compensation of Rs.12,500/- towards pain and suffering. But, for the expenditure incurred for purchasing medicines, in spite of the bills under Ex.A-7, to a tune of Rs.20,000/-, were pressed into service, nothing was awarded. However, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenditure and extra-nourishment. Further, it is on record that as per Ex.A-7 and the statement appended to it, a sum of Rs.24,000/- appears to have been incurred towards follow up treatment made by the claimant apart from the medical bills to a sum of Rs.11,345/-. But, the Tribunal did not place much reliance on those documents. Not much of reasoning was assigned by the Tribunal for not believing the said bills. But, it is on record that the claimant was hospitalised from 08.10.2000 to 17.10.2000 and the injury suffered by her was a fracture, that too at a vulnerable area of the body. In such a case, the Courts must be more lenient towards the injured, rather than going by strict calculation methods. In that view of the matter, I feel it expedient to enhance the compensation towards medical expenses by Rs.5,000/- more. Further, coming to the aspect of pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.12,500/- under this head. In this regard, it is to be remembered that the injury received by the claimant was at a very vulnerable area, that too, a fracture and the estimated disability is to an extent of 20%, which is something inexplicable inasmuch as the injury received by the claimant was in such an area that the pain and suffering cannot be explained nor can be brought on record. In such cases, the pain and suffering shall be based, to a considerable extent, on the guesswork of the Court. Even the injured also cannot explain the pain and suffering undergone by her in words and what is lost because of such an injury. Therefore, I feel it expedient to award a further sum of Rs.12,500/- towards pain and suffering. In all, the enhanced compensation under the heads of medical expenses and pain and suffering comes to Rs.17,500/-. The said enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA​ 24th June 2010 dr