THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.581 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the petitioner- claimant against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.158/2002. 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts are as follows: On 24.11.2001 at about 7.15 a.m. when the petitioner and his brother-in-law were proceeding on Chetak Scoter from Bapu Nagar, Chikkadpally to Narasimha Basthi, when they reached Nallakunta railway bridge, one Maruthi Zen bearing Regn.No.AP- 11/J-4411 came from backside in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the scooter, on account of which, petitioner and his brother-in-law fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to Durgabai Deshmuch Hospital and Research Centre, Osmania University, Hyderabad. A case in Cr.No.287 of 2001 was registered by the police for the accident. He spent about Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. He claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate counters denying the petition allegations. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident in question took place on 24.11.2001 at about 7.15 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving of Maruthi Zen bearing Regn.No.AP-11/J-4411 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy certificate was marked. On the basis of the material on record, the court below granted compensation of Rs.84,362/-. Aggrieved by the above quantum, the present appeal is filed. 6. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to enhance the compensation? 7. The trial Court did not grant any amount towards pain and suffering and towards extra nourishment and for attendant charges and the amount granted towards loss of earnings is also not reasonable, as only an amount of Rs.4,362/- was granted though the petitioner was unable to walk for about six months. 8. Considering all the circumstances, as the petitioner suffered shortening of leg by ½”, which would cause permanent disability, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- instead of Rs.84,362/- awarded by the court below. 9. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.84,362/- to Rs.1,20,000/-. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation shall be at 6% per annum. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 3rd December 2010, Rns