THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU M.A.C.M.A.No.2351 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This M.A.C.M.A., under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), is directed against the judgment, dated 18.12.2006 in O.P.No.1942 of 2003, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge), Nizamabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim petition filed by the appellant/petitioner, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, was partly allowed. 2. The appellant herein is the petitioner and the respondents herein are the respondents, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner filed the Original Petition stating that she was a resident of Ahmedi Bazar locality in Nizamabad town and a Labourer by occupation. On 15.12.2003 at about 11:30 AM, while she was standing in front of Janata Iron and Steel Merchant Shop, Azam Road, Nizamabad, an Auto bearing No.AP25 U 2999 came in a rash or negligent manner at high speed from Raja Rajendra Talkies road side and dashed her. As a result of it, she fell down and the front wheel of the Auto ran over her. The petitioner sustained fractures of back bone, skull and received injury to the right eye, which affected her vision. Her face was permanently disfigured. Immediately after the accident, she was taken to Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad, where she was treated by a team of medical officers. After discharge from the Government Hospital, she took treatment in private hospital and she spent Rs.1,00,000/- for treatment and still continuing the treatment. Before the accident, the petitioner was earning income of Rs.9,000/- per month but on account of the injuries sustained by her in the accident, she was not in a position to walk; to do any work and suffered permanent disability. Since she suffered injuries and permanent disability because of the accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving by respondent No.1 of Auto bearing No.AP25 U 2999 duly insured with 2nd respondent, she was entitled to compensation of Rs.13,80,000/- but restricted her claim to Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, the claim petition. 4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 5. Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the age and earnings of the petitioner; manner of accident; causing of injuries to the petitioner; incurring of any expenditure by the petitioner for treatment; holding of a valid and subsisting driving licence by the person who drove the auto bearing No.AP25 U 2999 at the material time of accident; fitness certificate to ply from the competent authority and a valid policy issued by respondent No.2 covering the risk of the petitioner. It is contended that respondent No.1 had not intimated to respondent No.2 about the alleged accident; that respondent No.1 had not furnished the vehicular particulars etc; that respondent No.2 came to know of the alleged accident only on receipt of notice from the Tribunal; that it had not received information from the concerned police in Form No.54 as required under Section 158 (6) of the Act within thirty days of its occurrence; that therefore, the accident itself is denied; that if the petitioner is able to prove that respondent No.2 issued a valid policy to the Auto, then the liability of respondent No.2 was strictly in terms of the terms and conditions of the policy; that in violation of the same, it cannot be made liable to pay compensation to the petitioner; that the amount of compensation and interest claimed by the petitioner were excessive and she was not entitled to the same; that it seeks protection under Sections 147, 149 and 170 of the Act and hence, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of auto bearing No.AP25 U 2999 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?” 7. To substantiate the case of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were got marked, and on behalf of respondent No.2, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1 was got marked. 8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident due to rash or negligent driving by respondent No.1 of Auto bearing No.AP25 U 2999, and granted compensation of Rs.20,000/-. Challenging the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner. 9. Now the point for consideration is whether the order passed by the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 10. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Doctor, who examined PW.1, categorically stated that PW.1 sustained 20% partial disability; that she cannot walk for a long distance; that therefore, granting of compensation at Rs.20,000/- is meager amount and hence, he prays to enhance the compensation. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that for the grievous injury sustained by the appellant, the Tribunal rightly granted Rs.10,000/-; that for simple injury Rs.1,000/- was granted besides granting Rs.3,000/- towards cost of treatment, Rs.3,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.1,000/- towards transport charges totalling to Rs.20,000/-; that therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. It is not in dispute that the accident was caused due to the rash or negligent driving by the Driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP26 U 2999. The only question to be answered in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation. 13. It is not in dispute before this Court that the appellant sustained fracture of the interior pubic ramous on the right side with an abrasion on the right elbow and also simple injury on the right eye. PW.2 is the Doctor who gave conservative treatment to the appellant. She was discharged on 20.12.2003. Ex.A3 is the discharge card issued by the Doctor. Ex.A8 is case sheet with X-ray in Government Hospital. PW.2 has categorically stated that the appellant cannot walk for more distance and she is suffering from 20% partial disability. So, considering these aspects, the Tribunal ought to have granted further amount of Rs.10,000/- towards fracture to the appellant. Considering the fracture, compensation of Rs.10,000/- is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. Grant of compensation in other heads are confirmed. 14. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the appellant, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J September 22, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU M.A.C.M.A.No.2351 OF 2011 Between: Anwari Begum .....APPELLANT AND Kanda Swamy and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU M.A.C.M.A.No.2351 OF 2011 September 22, 2011 MD