THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.370 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the claimant against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, R.R.District, in O.P.No.879/97. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the second respondent-insurance company. 3. According to the appellant-petitioner, on 22.04.1997 when he was proceeding on a scooter as pillion rider from HUDA colony towards Chandanagar at telephone exchange, Chandanagar, zeep bearing No.APB-386 coming in opposite direction dashed the scooter, on account of that petitioner fell down, suffered grievous injury, shifted to Vijay Nursing Home, where he was given first aid and referred to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment and again shifted to E.S.I. Hospital, Sanathnagar, where he took treatment as inpatient from 23.04.1997 to 14.05.1997. He suffered fracture of both bones of right leg and multiple injuries all over his body. He spent substantial amount towards treatment. After the accident, he was unable to walk properly. He claimed compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh. First respondent remained exparte and the second respondent filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident occurred on 23.04.1997 at E.S.I. hospital, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Jeep No.APB 386? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, how much? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On the basis of the material on record, the Court below granted compensation of Rs.90,000/-, i.e. Rs.10,000/- less than what is claimed by the petitioner. 4. The claimant now contends that he is entitled for more compensation in fact than what is claimed and the court below erred in granting only Rs.90,000/-. The evidence of P.W.2, the Medical Officer reveals that the petitioner underwent three surgeries on different dates on account of the accident on account of malunion of injury and the spot of the accident is ankle joint, which would naturally difficult to heal and would cause substantial pain and there is shortening of leg on account of the accident. Considering all these circumstances, there was nothing wrong in granting compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed. 5. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.90,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. Interest on enhanced amount shall be at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 29th June 2010, Rns