HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2556 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order and decree in O.P. No.115 of 1999 dated 15-02-2002 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. 2. Appellant is claimant and respondent Nos.1 and 2, owner of the lorry bearing No.AP-25-T-4317 and its insurer - Oriental Insurance Company Limited respectively, are respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. Claimant’s case is that on 15-01-1999 at about 12-30 PM, while he was travelling in the jeep bearing No.AP-25-T-5661 from Nizamabad towards Indalwai, at Nagpur gate on Hyderabad to Nagpur Road, High Way No.7, Dichpally village outskirts, lorry bearing No.AP-25-T-4317, belonging to respondent No.1, that was coming in the opposite direction driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the jeep and on account of that claimant sustained several injuries all over his body including head injuries, fracture of skull, fracture of vertebra and fracture of both legs and hands. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Nizamabad Head Quarters and treated there. He spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatement and medicines etc. He was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as agriculturist – cum – labourer. Due to the accident, he suffered permanent disability. Hence, he claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their written statements denying the case of the claimant. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: “1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP-25-T-4317 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents ? 3. To what relief ?” 7. To prove his case, claimant got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced except marking Ex.B-1 insurance policy with consent. 8. Based on the evidence on record, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.64,000/- to the claimant as against his claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. Aggrieved of the same, claimant filed this appeal. 9. Now, contention of the learned counsel for the claimant, appellant, is that claimant suffered several serious injuries including fractures of vertebral column, pelvis and head injuries as well. After the accident, claimant is not able to do any hard work and he became permanently disabled. Tribunal has not applied any multiplier while awarding compensation and that on the basis of the percentage of injuries and permanent disability suffered by the claimant, Tribunal ought to have awarded just and reasonable compensation by applying appropriate multiplier. 10. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 11. PW.2 is Orthopaedic Surgeon in the Government Hospital, Nizamabad Head Quarters and he treated the claimant in that hospital. His evidence is that he has seen the claimant latest on 22-05-2000 and that he (claimant) was admitted in the hospital on 15-01-1999 and was inpatient there till 03-02-1999 and during that period also he treated him. He further stated that claimant suffered fracture of superior and interior pubic ramie which is malunited; he did not speak about other fractures. Ex.A-5 initial medical certificate also shows fracture of pelvis only. Thus, it is a case where claimant suffered fracture of pelvis – public ramie only, however it is somewhat serious injury which cannot be easily treated and cured and that would cause permanent disability. The exact nature of disability / permanent disability is not clearly available, though PW.2 has stated the permanent disability as 45%, it is apparently not based on any authentic material. 12. On account of the accident, claimant must have been out of work for some time and his kith and kin must have attended him while he was undergoing treatment and he must have spent at least some money during the treatment though he was treated in Government Hospital for most of the period. 13. Considering the circumstances, awarding a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant for the injuries suffered by him in the accident would be appropriate and the same would meet the ends of justice. 14. Accordingly, the compensation awarded to the claimant by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) from Rs.64,000/-. However, the rate of interest on the enhanced compensation shall be at 7.5% per annum only from the date of petition. 15. With the above directions and modifications, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J September 8, 2010. PV