IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2285 of 2000 Between: Neelapu Appalaswamy, S/o. Ramanujulu. ...APPELLANT AND Mundnuri Gurayya, S/o. Badri Raju and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Ch. Dhanamjaya Counsel for the Respondents : Mrs. A. Malathi The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is by the claimant, who was injured in an accident that occurred on 01.01.1992. The appellant claims that on 01.01.1992 while he was going on his cycle on the extreme left side of the road, a Matador Van bearing No. AP 9 6549, belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, came at high speed and dashed against him resulting in serious injuries. He has, thereafter, taken treatment at Government Hospital from an Orthopedic surgeon and later filed the present claim petition in O.P. 301 of 1992 seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Subsequently, by I.A.No.1245 of 1995 he sought enhancement of the said claim to Rs.1,25,000/-. The permission to amend and enhance the claim was ordered by the tribunal below on 18.12.1995. The OP was tried by the tribunal below and after finding the issue of rash and negligent driving in favour of the claimant with respect to compensation on account of injuries the tribunal below awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses, extra-nourishment and transportation to the hospital, as against claim of Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards extra- nourishment and Rs.1,000/- towards transportation charges. The tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.3,000/- towards loss of earning and Rs.10,000/- towards future loss. Thus, in all the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.23,000/-. Aggrieved thereby the present appeal is preferred. 2. Heard the learned for the appellant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the evidence of P.W.2 – Orthopedic Surgeon, who has deposed that he has treated the claimant, who had suffered fracture injury to his right hip and multiple injuries on the body. He stated that the claimant was under treatment for a month and surgery had to be performed for his fracture injury and after the surgery; the right leg of the claimant is shortened by ¾ of an inch. The said evidence remained uncontraverted. The tribunal below, however, did not accept that the claimant was earning Rs.1,500/- per month in the absence of any evidence. Even then the learned counsel submits that the compensation awarded is too meager. 4. It is, no doubt, true that in Para 9 of the impugned judgment the tribunal has accepted the evidence of P.W.2, who has spoken about the treatment, which he gave to the claimant – P.W.1 on account of the injuries in the accident. In addition thereto the hospitalization of the claimant for a month and subsequent disability with respect to right leg would necessarily affect his working and just and adequate compensation ought to have been granted by the tribunal below. The amount warded by the tribunal is much less and warrants appropriate enhancement. 5. As against the medical expenses, extra-nourishment and transportation charges claimed at Rs.25,000/- by the claimant, the tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.5,000/- as there was no evidence of medical bills. However, keeping in view the fact that the disability suffered and surgeries undergone by the claimant being uncontraverted at least a sum of Rs.20,000/- could have been awarded. Thus, after deducting Rs.5,000/- awarded by the tribunal, a further sum of RS.15,000/- deserves to be allowed. Similarly, towards loss of earnings and towards permanent disability incurred by him on account of shortening of right leg another sum of Rs.15,000/- deserves to be enhanced. Thus, the award of the tribunal below is modified as above and the compensation is enhanced by an aggregate sum of Rs.30,000/- over and above the amount awarded by the tribunal below together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till payment. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed in part. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 18, 2009 DSK