THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2947 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order dated 31.01.2005 in O.P.No.181 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad questioning the quantum of compensation. A claim was made for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor accident on 07.12.2003 when he was said to have been hit by a D.C.M. van bearing No.AP- 28/U.6508 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner causing multiple grievous injuries to the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have suffered permanent disability and he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and he spent money for treatment and also lost his earnings. The 1st respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurance company and both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent filed counter disputing the claim of the petitioner about the nature of the injuries, nature of treatment and also the claim for compensation. The lower Tribunal, after considering the material on record, has granted a compensation of Rs.30,800/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT: So far as the nature of the incident and receiving of the injuries by the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute seriously about it. So far as the nature of the injuries received by the petitioner is concerned, he has relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 and also the discharge summary Ex.A-6 and also the disability certificate Ex.A-7. As can be seen from the record, he was said to have been in hospital for a period of 9 days and he was admitted in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad on 07.12.2003 and discharged on 15.12.2003. He was said to have received fracture of both bones of left leg and it is a grievous injury. There is also an opinion of the doctor that there is shortening of leg and consequently there is a partial disability. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the lower Tribunal has not taken into consideration the loss of earning capacity and the quantum of medical expenses granted by the lower Tribunal are too low. Taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.2, though doubted by the lower Tribunal, keeping in view the injury certificate and other material on record, I feel the ends of justice would meet, if a compensation of Rs.50,000/- is granted on all counts. Therefore, the compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 21-11-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2947 of 2011 DATE: 21-11-2011 MR