HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.465 of 2005 JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful petitioner-claimant in the O.P. preferred this appeal against the order and decree in M.V.O.P. No.1000 of 2002 vide orders dated 05.11.2004 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – IX Additional Chief Judge (F.T.C.), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. Heard. 3. In this appeal, appellant is the petitioner-claimant, respondent No.1 is the owner of the Maruthi Car bearing No. AP 28 P 8507 that involved in the accident and the second respondent is the insurance company, with whom the offending vehicle is being insured. 4. The facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows: While the claimant and three others were traveling in a Maruthi car bearing No. AP 28 P 8507 on 10.03.2001 at about 8.30 p.m. when the car reached the outskirts of Gagillapur village, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car it met with an accident with lorry bearing No.AP 16 T 3535 by dashing the lorry from backside, on account of which, the petitioner received injuries and he was immediately shifted to Anurag Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment. A case in Cr.No.34 of 2001 was registered by the Bejjanki Police Station for the offence under Section 337 IPC and investigated into. Hence, the claimant filed this O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- contending that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by working in a chit fund company. 5. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte and respondent No.2, insurance company, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident resulting in injuries to petitioner took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruthi Car bearing No.AP 28 P 8507? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the claimant, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and the doctor, who treated the claimant got examined as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Exs.X1 and B1 were marked. 8. On the basis of the material available on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.51,000/-. Out of that Rs.7,500/- towards loss of earning, Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.17,300/- towards medical bills and Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, to the claimant against both the respondents making them jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. Aggrieved of the same, as stated above, the claimant preferred this appeal. 9. Now the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant underwent inpatient treatment for 24 days in a private hospital and a surgery was conducted on his spinal chord and thereby he spent substantial amount towards treatment and the petitioner is not in a position to attend to his duties as efficiently as earlier as his spinal chord, the vital part of the body, got operated and thereby he get some permanent disability. However, nothing was awarded by the court below towards permanent disability suffered by the petitioner and loss of his future earning capacity. 10. In the circumstances, I am inclined to grant another amount of Rs.15,000/- towards further compensation for the inconvenience suffered by the petitioner and thereby the compensation awarded by the court below is enhanced from Rs.51,000/- to Rs.66,000/-. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.51,000/- to Rs.66,000/-. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation is at 6% per annum. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 24, 2010. Rns