THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.765 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 10.12.2007, in O.P.No.470 of 2005 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-III Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad, wherein the said claim application filed by the appellant herein, was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.12,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of the petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Appellant herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.08.2004. According to the appellant, while he was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP-25-U-5374 from Nizamabad to Dasnagar near Gangasthan ‘T’ road a JCB vehicle bearing No.AP.11-U-8413, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the auto as a result of which the appellant sustained multiple injuries, including fracture of right leg fibula, and fracture to left hand both bones and that he was shifted to the District Headquarters hospital, Nizamabad. Appellant further pleaded that he was earning Rs.8000/- per month as an auto driver prior to the accident and on account of the permanent disability resulted from the accident, he lost his earning capacity. 4. 1st respondent-owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. 2nd respondent-insurance company filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral evidence was adduced by the insurer and Ex.B1- copy of the policy was marked. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van by its driver and the said finding has become final as no appeal is filed by the insurance company. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.1000/- towards transport charges and Rs.1000/- for extra nourishment making up a total of Rs.12,000/-. Not satisfied with the award, claimant filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement. 7. Ex.A3-certified copy of the medical certificate shows that the claimant sustained two fracture injuries besides a simple injury. As per the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), he is entitled for Rs.5000/- each for the two fracture injuries and Rs.1000/- for the simple injury towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1000/- towards transport charges and the same is considered reasonable having regard to the fact that the claimant has taken treatment in a local hospital at Nizamabad. The Tribunal, however, awarded only Rs.1000/- towards extra nourishment, which is considered to be low having regard to the fact that the claimant sustained two multiple fracture injuries which must have required him to incur some expenditure not only towards extra nourishment but also towards medical expenses. Though the claimant has not filed any medical bills, showing the expenditure, the evidence of P.W.2 shows that the claimant has in fact taken treatment in the hospital. Hence, it is considered just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.5000/- for extra nourishment and also Rs.5000/- towards attendant charges having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant. Though the claimant has alleged that the injuries have resulted in permanent disability and consequent loss of earning capacity, he has not adduced any evidence in that regard nor did he file any certificate of disability issued by the competent Medical Board. Hence, the claim of the appellant for compensation towards the alleged permanent disability remains unsubstantiated. In the circumstances, it is held that the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.27,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the petition and 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 8. In the result, appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 07th September, 2011 Tsy