THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO. 3524 of 2011 JUDGMENT:- The appeal is filed by the petitioner/appellant questioning the amount of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal in O.P.No.270 of 2000 on the file of the court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad. A claim for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- was filed by the petitioner/appellant contending that on 01-10-1999 at about 8.30 P.M when he was going on a Scooter near Nadipalli village, the lorry bearing No.G3-9V-2442 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter, as a result, he received multiple injuries and also amputation. He claims to have spent money for treatment. The first respondent is the owner and the second respondent is the Insurance Company and both are liable to pay the compensation. The first respondent remained ex parte and the second respondent filed a counter denying the allegations and putting the petitioner to strict proof with regard to nature of injuries received by the petitioner and quantum of compensation. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT:- So far as the nature of the incident and liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, there is not of much dispute. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was amputation of the toes and the Tribunal has not taken into the evidence of PW.2 and on technicalities it has ignored the above fact. But, as can be seen from the findings of the lower Tribunal which are in para.17 the petitioner is said to have received a fracture of proximal phalanx of great toe left and fracture base 4th metatarsal right knee and also there was said to be crush injury and skin loss. The petitioner has claimed that there was a skin grafting also. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts the Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering of the injuries. Though the Tribunal has granted a sum Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses and loss of earnings; a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards crush injury, as can be seen from the above evidence, it is quite clear that at least there is some partial temporary disability to the petitioner. The crush injury causes inconvenience and the evidence of PW.3 supports the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts and also the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, I feel that the compensation granted by the lower Tribunal appears to be on a lower side and ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.75,000/- is granted in all counters in stead of Rs.50,000/- as granted by the lower Tribunal. Accordingly, the award of the lower Tribunal is modified and the total compensation to which the appellant/petitioner is entitled Rs.75,000/- in stead of Rs.50,000/- as granted by the lower Tribunal. Further, the petitioner is entitled for interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 16-12-2011 TSNR