THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 5372 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against the order dated 30.09.1995 in O.P No.893 of 1992 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The claimant is the appellant herein who filed O.P before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.60,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident. He pleaded that on 12.11.1992 at about 11.30 p.m., while he was travelling along with other passengers in an auto bearing No.A.E.T.5320 from Dilsukhnagar to Saroornagar and when the auto reached the Tank Bund of Saroornagar, a Van bearing No.A.P.13-0T-1625 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed and dashed the auto, due to which the auto turned turtle and the claimant and other passengers fell down and sustained grievous injuries including fractures. The first respondent, who is the original owner of the auto and the second respondent – Insurance Company filed their counters denying all the material allegations. The third respondent, who is the driver of the offending auto remained ex parte. On the strength of the rival pleadings, the learned Judge framed necessary issues as to whether the accident occurred on 12.11.1992 at about 11.30 p.m at Saroornagar Tank Bund, was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Van bearing No.A.P.13/T.1625 and whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? On behalf of the appellant, he was examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-10. On behalf of the respondent – Insurance Company though Ex.B-1 Insurance Policy was marked, none was examined. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal allowed the O.P in part against respondents 1 and 2 and awarded Rs.10,000/- towards compensation. Insofar as respondent No.3 is concerned, the Tribunal dismissed the claim against him. Being not satisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Judge has awarded only Rs.10,000/- as compensation as against the claim of Rs.60,000/- to the appellant which is on lower side and, therefore, the same needs to be enhanced. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Judge is quite reasonable and needs no interference. There is no dispute with regard to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. Insofar as awarding of compensation is concerned, the petitioner claims that he lost two teeth and sustained a fracture of nasal bone and injuries on his wrist and other parts of the body; that he was admitted in Osmania General Hospital and he was there for a week and that as trouble in nose was developed, he was not able to sneeze and therefore, he was shifted to E.N.T. Hospital in Koti, where he was treated as in-patient for about 5 to 6 days. Since the appellant, who is an employee of State Electricity Board, had lost his teeth, sustained fracture of nasal bone and received injuries on his wrist and other parts of the body in the said accident, and he was admitted in hospital for one week, I deem it appropriate that ends of justice would be met if the compensation is enhanced from Rs.10,000/-, as awarded by the Tribunal, to Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. However, it is made clear that the enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:17.03.2011 va