HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY M.A.C.M.A. No.2385 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.2679 of 2004 vide award dated 18-08-2006 by the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Fast Track Court, Hyderabad, claimant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The owner of the lorry bearing No.HR38 – H – 4603 that involved in the accident and its insurer are respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 11-03-2004, while he was travelling as pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing No.AP28 – R – 1073 from Hyderabad to Medchal, at Medchal Check Post, on National Highway – 7, at 10-30 AM, lorry bearing No.AP38 – H – 4603 belonging to respondent No.1 and being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and high speed, dashed against the motorcycle from backside and in that process that lorry also dashed against another lorry bearing No.KA – 01 – AD – 9716, as a result, claimant sustained crush injury to his foot and other injuries all over his body. A case in Crime No.58 of 2004 was registered against the driver of the lorry and investigated into. He was admitted in B.B.R. Hospital, where he took treatement as inpatient from 11-03-2004 to 17- 03-2004. His great toe and little toe were amputated and he was permanently disabled. He spent Rs.30,000/- for treatment. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.2,71,420/-. 5. Respondent No.1, owner of the lorry that involved in the accident, remained ex parte. 6. Respondent No.2, insurer of the above lorry, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant and also its liability for payment of compensation. 7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident resulting in injuries to the petitioner occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing no.HR.38 H 4603? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation if so to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 8. To prove his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of the insurance company, except marking insurance policy of the offending lorry as Ex.B-1, no oral evidence was adduced. 9. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.65,000/- to the claimant against both the respondents to pay the compensation jointly and severally with interest at 7.5% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 10. Since neither of the respondents preferred any appeal or cross-objections, there is no need to decide the question of proving the accident and their liability for payment of compensation. 11. Now the only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is inadequate ? 12. As per the award impugned itself, Ex.A-4, M.L.C. sheet, of B.B.R. Multi Specialty Hospital revealed that claimant sustained crush injury on foot and Ex.A-9, X-ray film, revealed (1) comminuted fractures of great toe terminal phalynx, (2) fracture of P.P., (3) fracture of 1st and 2nd metatarsals, and (4) fracture of terminal phalynx of 4th toe. Further, there was amputation of three toes of the injured foot. The disability certificate, now filed by the claimant, shows that his foot is completely deformed and he sustained 40% permanent disability. Due to amputation of three toes, there would be difficulty in walking even while working also and efficiency of the claimant must have been reduced substantially. Thus, claimant sustained permanent disability as well. According to the claimant, he spent Rs.23,000/- for treatment and medicines. Considering these circumstances, I am of the view that the compensation of Rs.65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate, as such, another Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only) can be awarded to the claimant and the same would meet the ends of justice and is accordingly awarded. 13. Thus, the compensation of Rs.65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand only). The claimant is entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation at 6% per annum from the date of O.P. till realization. He is permitted to withdraw 50% of the enhanced compensation along with accrued interest proportionately soon after its deposit and the remaining 50% one year thereafter. 14. With the above directions, the appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 3, 2010. PV