THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.3779 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant against the order dated 22.01.2002 in O.P. No.486 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar whereby and whereunder a total compensation of Rs.15,000/- was awarded as against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/-, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal can be summarized as follows: That on 14.2.1997 at about 5.00 p.m. the appellant-claimant was going home from school and when he reached near B.N.Reddy Nagar on Sagar road, a lorry bearing No. AP 28, T.5419 came from Ibrahimpatnam side driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed by its driver and dashed against him causing grievous fracture injury to his right leg at knee area and that Vanasthalipuram P.S. registered a case in Crime No.35/97. 3. The first respondent was set ex parte. The second respondent- insurance company filed counter putting the claimant to the strict proof of the averments made in the claim petition. It is stated that the amount claimed by the appellant is excessive. 4. PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.16 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents except marking Ex.B.1-copy of insurance policy. 5. By taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and considering the medical record in the shape of exhibits marked on behalf of the claimant, the lower Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.15,000/- ( i.e. Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards medical treatment), with interest at 9% per annum in favour of the claimant, as stated in Para No.1, supra. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the claimant was third standard student at the time of the accident and he underwent treatment for the injuries sustained by him in the accident for more than 3 ½ months by spending more than Rs.70,000/- towards medical expenses and lost an academic year. He contends that the lower Tribunal failed to consider Ex.A.5- bunch of medical bills issued by Kamineni hospital, Ex.A7-bunch of medical bills issued by NIMS and Ex.A.12- bunch of medical bills numbering 46 in proper perspective and failed to award appropriate amount towards medical expenses. He also contends that though Ex.A.15-disability certificate issued by NIMS hospital, Hyderabad was filed claiming Rs.80,500/- towards 20% disability, the lower Tribunal failed to award any amount under the said head; that though an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards transport and Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment was claimed, the lower Tribunal failed to award any amount of compensation under these heads. Further, it is contended that though the mother of the appellant- claimant has deposed that she had spent more than Rs.70,000/- towards medical expenses, the lower Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, he contends that the total amount of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal i.e. Rs.15,000/- with 9% per annum interest is on the lower side and the same may be enhanced appropriately. He further contends that because of the injuries suffered by the claimant, the height of his leg was reduced by one inch. 7. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the insurance company submits that the appellant-claimant-injured had suffered only 20% disability as per Ex.A.15. The appellant-claimant was examined as PW.1 and he deposed that he was not affected by the injuries suffered by him in his daily life and that he is able to walk, run, squat without any support and he was perfectly mobile. He further submits that the medical bills to the tune of Rs.4,435/- were filed and the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses; that the Tribunal awarded reasonable amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering caused to the appellant-claimant and that the interest at 9% is on the higher side, however, the respondent-insurance company is not questioning the same. 8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record. 9. The evidence of PW.1 is that he has sustained crush injury to his right leg knee and he was treated at Kamineni hospital for 15 days. Later, he was shifted to NIMS hospital and was treated there for 15 days and three operations were conducted. Thereafter, he was treated at Osmania General hospital for about 15 days and operated there once. To that effect Exs.A.3, A.4, A.6, A.8, A9 and A10 were filed through PW.2. At the time of the accident, he was studying 3rd standard; that he could not prosecute studies during that academic year due to injury and as such he lost one academic year. 10. It has to be seen that the appellant-claimant was treated as inpatient and hospitalised for a longer period. A perusal of Ex.A.15 goes to show that the appellant-claimant suffered 20% disability. Further, he lost an academic year. Under these circumstances, this court is of the view that the lower Tribunal ought to have awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards disability, which is just and reasonable, Rs.1,000/- towards transport, Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment, which is just and reasonable, Rs.5,000/- on account of losing an academic year, which is just and reasonable and Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and other inconveniences, instead of granting Rs.10,000/-. Since the medical bills filed by the claimant indicate that he spent Rs.4,435/- for medical treatment, the lower Tribunal has granted Rs.5,000/- on that count. 11. In the circumstances, it is to be held that the appellant-claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.33,000/-(Rupees thirty three thousand) only (i.e. Rs.5,000/- towards disability, Rs.1,000/- towards transport, Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.5,000/- for losing an academic year, Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and other inconveniences and Rs.5,000/- towards medical treatment), with interest at the rate of 6% per annum so far as the enhanced amount is concerned. 12. With this modification, the C.M.A. is disposed of. ​_______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 06-08-2010 Stp