HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No. 619 of 2002 DATED: .02.2010 Between: Abdul Samed Appellant And Shaik Moinuddin Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This is an appeal filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded in O.P. No.217 of 1996 dated 31.07.2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad. The appellant filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- due to the injuries sustained by him on 20.12.1995. The appellant was hit by the motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP25 A 3475 belonging to the 1st respondent herein. As a consequence of the same, he received grievous injuries, as such, he filed the O.P. claiming compensation. The 1st respondent, owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte, and the 2nd respondent-Oriental Insurance Company filed counter denying its liability. The Tribunal formulated issues as to whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist and whether the claimant was entitled to any compensation, and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.33,000/- towards compensation with 12% interest jointly and severally against the respondents. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant filed the present appeal for enhancement. Although notices are served on the respondents, there is no appearance on their behalf. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal did not properly consider the evidence before it and that the compensation awarded to the claimant is very low. Since there is no contest as to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle, there is no need to go into this issue in this appeal. It is the case of the appellant that he received injuries on the head and other parts of the body and that he suffered fracture on left leg hip joint. He was treated as in-patient in Government hospital, Bodhan and also in Government hospital, Nizamabad. In support of the claim, the appellant filed Ex.A3 – Wound Certificate and Ex.A5 - Medical bill. Ex.A3 discloses that the right wrist of the appellant was fractured and the injury was certified as grievous. It also discloses laceration on the right side of the scalp which is certified as simple injury. Ex.A5 is the medical bill issued by M/s.Anantha Lakshmi Medical and General Stores, Nizamabad for an amount of Rs.1180.50. The Tribunal, having regard to the nature of injuries, awarded a sum of Rs.28,000/-, and I am of the view that the same is just and reasonable. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2000/- towards medicines and extra nourishment, and Rs.3000/- towards pain and suffering. I am of the view that the amounts awarded towards medicines and extra nourishment and pain and suffering do not reflect just compensation. The accident occurred on 20.12.1995 at about 7.00 P.M. wherein the appellant, due to impact, fell down on the road. He had to be taken to Government hospitals. PW2, who is the eye-witness to the accident, shifted the appellant to Government hospital in a taxi to Bodhan and later to Nizamabad. As per the evidence of PW1, which is not rebutted, he was in hospital for 10 or 12 days. I am, therefore of the view that the sum awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is not reasonable. The appellant had undergone suffering for at least 10 days, and in my view, he is entitled to Rs.5000/- for undergoing pain and suffering. Thus, the appellant is entitled to enhancement of Rs.2000/- on that account. Similarly, having regard to the nature of injury and the treatment at two Government hospitals in Bodhan and Nizamabad, he is entitled to a sum of Rs.5000/- towards medicines and extra nourishment. Although the Tribunal stated that Rs.2000/- was awarded towards medicines and extra nourishment, but having regard to Ex.A5 – Medical Bill, which shows that the appellant spent Rs.1180.50 on the date of the accident i.e. on 20.12.1995 alone, he must have spent some more amounts later as he was under treatment after 20.12.1995 also. Therefore, the amount of Rs.2000/- purportedly awarded towards medicines and extra nourishment can be treated as expenditure towards medicines only. Thus, the appellant is entitled to enhancement of Rs.3000/- on that account. Further, as per the evidence of PW2, the appellant had to be taken to Government hospitals firstly to Bodhan and then to Nizamabad by taxi. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on that account. I am, therefore, of the view that the appellant is entitled Rs.1000/- towards transport charges. The appellant specifically claimed that he was running a pan shop, and due to the accident, he could not run the shop, consequently, he suffered loss of earnings. But the Tribunal did not award any compensation towards loss of earnings. Although the appellant claimed that he was earning Rs.4000/- P.M., it can be presumed that he was earning Rs.3000/- P.M. i.e. at the rate of Rs.100/- per day. Since the appellant pleaded that he was in hospital for 10 to 12 days, he was disabled to earn at least for 10 days. Therefore, he is entitled to Rs.1000/- towards loss of earnings. The Tribunal did not award any amount towards extra nourishment, separately as noted above and that the appellant apparently required extra nourishment apart from the medicines for considerable period, and I am of the view that he is entitled to Rs.3000/- on this account. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it is just and reasonable to award a total sum of Rs.43,000/- whereas, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.33,000/- in total. Thus, the appellant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- as enhancement of compensation. The appellant is also entitled to interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization on the enhanced amount. The award dated 31.07.2001 in O.P.No.217 of 1996 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad, is modified accordingly. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J February, 2010. bcj