THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 3051 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved against the order and decree dated 19.08.2002 in O.P.No.574 of 2000 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Khammam, the claimant- appellant filed the present appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The appellant herein is the claimant in the main O.P. On 18.09.1997 the claimant/appellant came to Karimnagar to purchase some articles and at about 4.30 p.m. she boarded the R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP-9-Z-7535 of Mancheerial depot to go to Luxettipet, when the bus reached near Pandivagu of Arnakonda Village at about 5.30 p.m., the first respondent drove the bus with high speed in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which, he lost control and the bus went to the extreme right left of the road and dashed the nearby tree, as a result, she sustained grievous fracture injuries along with other passengers. Before the court below, the first respondent remained ex parte and the second respondent filed its counter denying all the allegations made in the petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount of compensation granted by the lower Court towards the injuries and pain and suffering is very meagre and is not justified and requests for enhancement of the same Now the point for consideration is whether the compensation granted by the lower Court is sustainable and that the appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation. There was no dispute regarding the manner in which the accident was occurred and joint liability of respondent Nos.1 and 2. P.W.1 is the injured. P.W.2 is the doctor, who treated the injured. Therefore, evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 is of paramount importance for deciding the issue on hand. According to P.W.1, she took treatment in Sivarama Krishna Hospital, Karimnagar and underwent surgery to her right leg, steel plates were inserted in the right leg up to ankle and that she was hospitalised for a period of four months and that she was bed ridden for about five months. Admittedly, P.W.1 is an agricultural coolie, aged about 70 years on the date of the accident. In proof of the injuries, Dr. Sivarama Krishna as P.W.2 deposed that on 18.09.1997. P.W.1 came to his hospital with compound fracture of upper end of right tibia and she was operated, treated and discharged on 09.10.1997. Ex.A.5 is X-ray films (3) in number and Ex.A.6 is the prescription issued by him. Ex.A.4 is the Medical Certificate. Therefore, the fact remains that P.W.1 sustained crush injury to her right leg knee joint tenderness and opined that the injuries are grievous in nature. In the aforesaid circumstances, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1 and the documentary evidence Exs.A.4 to A.6, I am of the firm view that granting of compensation of Rs.20,000/- for fracture of right leg is meagre and the same is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- , which is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, granting of Rs.1,000/- towards pain and suffering is very meagre in view of the age of the injured. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.3,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering as the injured is an aged person. With the above modifications, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the total compensation from Rs.26,000/- to Rs.58,000/- The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. ______________ K.S.APPA RAO,J 10th February 2011 bud