FIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.428 of 2008 Date:14.07.2011 Between: Shaik Mabu Subhani @ Shaik Mokkapti Subhani .....Appellant AND Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep. By its G.M., Hyderabad and 2 others. ....Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.428 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 27.12.2007 passed in M.V.O.P.No.896 of 2005 on the file of Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, the present CMA is filed. It is the case of the petitioner that he filed a claim petition under Section163-A, 160 and 140 of M.V. Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1.00 lakhs with interest for the injuries received by him in a motor vehicle accident. While evaluating both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal below awarded total compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner against the 1st respondent with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realisation while dismissing the petition against the respondents 2 and 3. The learned counsel appeared for the petitioner mainly urged that the petitioner is aged about 38 years and he is gold smith by profession and due to fracture, he is deprived of his future earnings and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below is very meagre as there is no nexus between the gravity of the injury and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below and hence the same may be enhanced. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? The factum of the accident is not disputed. The petitioner in order to prove his injuries, he filed Ex.A.3 wound certificate, Ex.A.4 X- ray films. He also examined P.W.2 Dr. S.S.V. Ramana. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 is paramount importance while granting compensation. According to P.W.2, on 3.7.2005, the petitioner was admitted with fracture of the glenoid of right shoulder, that the patient was treated conservatively and on 8.7.2005 he was discharged from the hospital. On his examination, there is a terminal 5-degree restriction of movements of right shoulder and Ex.X.1 is the case sheet and Ex.A.4 is the X-ray films. Ex.A.3 wound certificate shows that the petitioner received two injuries i.e., one grievous injury and one simple injury. The Tribunal below granted Rs.20,000/- towards grievous injury. In my view, the same is meager and enhanced to Rs.25,000/-, besides granting Rs.3,000/- towards the simple injury. Though the petitioner did not file any documentary evidence regarding the expenditure incurred towards the treatment, granting of Rs.5,000/- on that score is just and reasonable besides granting of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. With this modification, the compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- as granted by the Tribunal below is enhanced to Rs.48,000/- (Rupees forty eight thousand only). Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.48,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. In the circumstances, no costs. _________________ K.S.APPA RAO,J Date: 14th July, 2011. Gk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.428 of 2008 Date: 14.07.2011 Gk.