HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.2404 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the petitioner against the order in O.P.No.1721 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad-cum-XVI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, questioning the quantum of compensation. 2. A claim for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- was made for the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor accident. 3. According to the case of the petitioner, on 16.06.2002 when he was going on a scooter bearing No.ATS 7733, the Ambassador car bearing No.AP 12 T 1298 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter, as a result of which, the petitioner deceased received multiple injuries. He claims to be a scooter mechanic and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and suffered disability and lost earnings. The 1st respondent is owner of the vehicle and the 2nd respondent is Insurance Company. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent-Insurance company filed a counter denying the averments in the petition, putting the petitioner to strict proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, nature of injuries received by him and medical expenses incurred by him. 4. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal accepted the cause of accident and granted a compensation of Rs.37,700/-. Being not satisfied with that, the present appeal is filed. 5. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is legal and sustainable? 6. POINT: The learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the owner of the vehicle, who is the 1st respondent herein, is not a party to this claim as notice was not served and therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. But, however, as can be seen from the record, the notice was taken to the given address of the 1st respondent and he remained ex parte in the lower Court. The Insurance Company did not challenge the award. The owner of the vehicle also did not challenge the award. In such circumstances, in view of the decision reported in Meka Chakra Rao Vs. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others[1], the objection of the respondent No.2-Insurance Company cannot be considered. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner contends that the petitioner has received multiple injuries and the Tribunal has not properly assessed the nature of the compensation. 8. As can be seen from the award, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.13,672/- for medical expenses and a sum of Rs.9,000/- towards loss of income. As can be seen from Ex.A.3-Wound Certificate, the petitioner is said to have received a sutured wound on the right upper lip and a sutured wound on the right frontal region and black swollen left eye with bruise. As can be seen from the discharge summary-Ex.A.4, the petitioner was said to have admitted on 16.06.2002 at C.D.R. Hospital and discharged on 09.07.2002. The bill-Ex.A.7 issued by the C.D.R. hospital to a tune of Rs.3,13,302.15 ps., was filed. The lower Tribunal has found that there is no proof of payment of this bill. Therefore, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.13,672/- only to the petitioner. Evidently, when the bill has been prepared by the C.D.R. hospital, without the amount being paid, it would have been difficult to be discharged from the hospital. The fact that the petitioner was in hospital for a longer time is not in dispute. As rightly found by the lower Tribunal, the petitioner has not examined any doctor to prove the disability or the particular operations, if any, conducted. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the petitioner has proved disability. But, however, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was in hospital for a longer time and taking into consideration the nature of the injuries, I feel the ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.50,000/- is granted. Accordingly, the award is modified and the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation to Rs.50,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:23.12.2011 INL [1] 2001(1) ALD 453 (DB)