THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.939 of 2003 Date: 08-7-2010 Between Chintha Sanjeeva Reddy … Appellant/Petitioner and 1. Gutta Ranga Rao and another … Respondents/Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.939 of 2003 Oral Judgment: Despite service of notice, none appears for respondent No.1-owner of the bus bearing No.AP16W- 2998 (insured). 2. Sri G.S.Prakash Rao, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2-insurer, is not present nor there is any representation on his behalf. 3. Heard Sri P.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner. 4. Appeal by the claimant challenging the order and decree, dated 25-02-2002, in O.P.No.487 of 1999, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Nalgonda awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the injuries received by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27-01-1999 due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending bus. 5. Since the details of the accident are not in dispute, the only question that falls for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is justified and reasonable ? 6. The claim was for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- but the Tribunal having taken note of the injuries on record, had awarded only a sum of Rs.25,000/- in all towards compensation to the claimant, out of which a sum of Rs.15,000/- was earmarked for pain and suffering. 7. Ex.A-8, which is a bunch of medical bills to the tune of Rs.40,000/-, was produced by the claimant before the Tribunal but the same was not believed by the Tribunal and therefore, the Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- only for medical expenses and attendance. 8. Further, it has been recorded by the Tribunal that Exs.A-3 and A-9, which are medical certificates, show that the claimant received a crush injury on the left foot coupled with multiple abrasions. The said certificates do not disclose as to how long the claimant was in the hospital and no document produced by the claimant as regards the extent of disability. Therefore, having regard to the said facts, the Tribunal had awarded only a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the claimant towards disability. 9. Accordingly, the reasons accorded by the Tribunal are satisfactory, however, in my considered view, I feel it expedient in order to meet the ends of justice to increase the amount granted towards pain and suffering by Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) more, inasmuch as, the pain and suffering is some thing, which cannot be explained. 10. Further, having regard to the facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to enhance the total sum of compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) and the additional sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) now granted in this appeal shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the O.P., before the Tribunal till realisation. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 08th July, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.939 of 2003 08th July, 2010. (Ak)