THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1990 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appellant, her husband and their son were travelling in a bus operated by the A.P.S.R.T.C. on 15.06.1994 from Dola to Visakhapatnam to attend betrothal ceremony. When the bus reached Kanimetta Village on National Highway No.5 at 7.15 a.m., a lorry bearing No. AHH 2544, owned by respondent No.4, driven by respondent No.3 and insured with respondent No.5, hit the bus, resulting in the death of the husband of the appellant and serious injuries to her. She was admitted in Hospital and a criminal case was registered against the Driver. She claimed compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- by filing M.V.O.P.No.306 of 1998 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Court, Srikakulam (for short ‘the Tribunal’). She has furnished the particulars of injuries received by her, nature of treatment and the suffering undergone by her. The O.P. was contested by respondent No.5 alone. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 remained ex parte. The liability was denied pleading that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.3. Through its order, dated 06.02.2003, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.85,054/- against respondent Nos.3 to 5. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the record established that the appellant received four grievous injuries and has undergone treatment for about 2 months and still, the Tribunal awarded meager compensation. He contends that award of Rs.5,000/- for each grievous injury is too meager by any standard. The learned counsel further submits that the compensation awarded for the treatment is totally inadequate. It is also stated that though the appellant has suffered 50% of disability, hardly any compensation was awarded on that account. The learned counsel for respondent No.5, on the other hand, submits that the Tribunal has taken into account the documentary evidence, be it as regards the medical bills or the oral deposition of the Doctor and awarded adequate compensation. He further submits that the appellant failed to prove the nature of disability suffered by her and all the same, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- on that account. He contends that no enhancement is warranted. Before the Tribunal, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were filed on behalf of the appellant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by respondent Nos.3 to 5. The occurrence of the accident was hardly in doubt and the Tribunal recorded a finding to the effect that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3. The fact that the appellant received injuries in the accident was not at all in doubt. She claimed the compensation under three main heads, namely (a) compensation towards expenses incurred for treatment which included cost of medicines, extra nourishment, transport etc; (b) compensation for pain and suffering; and (c) compensation on account of permanent disability. The Doctor, who treated the appellant for the injuries, was examined as P.W.4. He stated that the treatment continued for about two months (54 days, to be precise) and that he charged Rs.47,000/-. For such a prolonged treatment, expenditure naturally needs to be incurred not only for paid attendant, but also the attendants from the family foregoing their routine duties and works. Extra nourishment and transport need to be taken into account. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.55,054/-. It is felt that the same needs to be enhanced to Rs.70,000/-. The record clearly discloses that the appellant received four grievous injuries. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for each of such injuries towards pain and suffering. The trend is to award Rs.20,000/- for each grievous injury and since the accident took place in the year 2003, it is felt that a sum of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded for each injury. Therefore, on this account, the appellant is entitled to Rs.60,000/- as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. A clear finding was recorded to the effect that the appellant suffered 50% disability to discharge the duties. However, no evidence was placed before the Tribunal to quantify the monetary value of the disability. Even if that is so, Rs.10,000/- is too inadequate. The appellant was 54 years when she received grievous injuries and the disability suffered by her would cause serious hardship for the rest of the life. Rs.50,000/- can be awarded on that account. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand only), which would include the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation shall carry interest at 7%. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:09.11.2011. kdl