HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 480 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order and decree dated 31.07.2007 passed in M.V.O.P.No.524 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The appellant herein is the petitioner in the said O.P. For convenience sake, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 31.10.2004, the appellant-petitioner started from Wanaparthy town in a lorry in order to go to Linganabai village to get load of jawar and when the said lorry reached near K.M.stone 190/4 on N.H.7 road, the driver of the lorry lost control over it and hit to a stationed lorry bearing No.AP-04-T-9795 from behind, as a result of which, the petitioner received grievous injuries. Immediately, the petitioner was admitted in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. Therefore, he filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A1 to A.11 and Ex.X.1 and X.2 were got marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was got marked. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, and accordingly allowed the O.P. in part awarding the compensation of Rs.74,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner mainly urged that though the petitioner sustained two grievous injuries and three simple injuries besides loss of left eye-sight, the Tribunal did not consider the same and awarded meagre compensation. He further urged that the Tribunal did not take into consideration the income of the petitioner while awarding compensation, and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable for enhancement. Now, the point for consideration is whether the appellant- petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation? The factum of the accident is not disputed. The petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 besides examining PWs. 2 to 4. The evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 is of paramount consideration while granting compensation in the present case on hand. Admittedly, the petitioner is aged about 35 years and he is a Cleaner on a lorry by profession. On perusal of the impugned order, the petitioner sustaining fractures to both legs and lost eye vision. In a case of this nature, the gravity of injuries to be taken into consideration while granting compensation. According to petitioner, he sustained fracture of both legs below knee, fracture of left patella, injury on cheek, fore head, right temporal region and crush injury on left eye. He lost vision of his left eye on account of piercing glass pieces in his left eye, and undergone operation at Government General Hospital, Kurnool and was discharged on 26.11.2004. He spent Rs.50,000/-towards medical and attendant charges. Admittedly the accident occurred on 31.10.2004 and he was discharged on 26.11.2004. To corroborate his version, the petitioner placed reliance on Ex.A.3, wound certificate, and Ex.A.4, discharge certificate, issued by the Government General Hospital, Kurnool and Ex.A.5, bunch of medical bills. As per material document Ex.A.3, the petitioner sustained the following injuries. 1. Lacerated wound 3 x 2 cm over the right cheek 2. Deformity of both lower limbs 3. Lacerated wound 3 x 1 cm below both the knee 4. Lacerated wound on the left head 3 x 2 bleeding 5. Lacerated wound 5 x 3 cm on the right temporal region. X-ray report reveals that the fracture of patella and dislocation of right knee. The doctor who issued wound certificate opined that the injuries 1, 4 and 5 are simple in nature and injuries 2 and 3 are grievous in nature. Ex.A.4 discharge certificate disclosed that the patient was admitted in the hospital on 31.10.2004 and discharged on 26.11.2004 and diagnosis revealed that Post dislocation of knee joint and fracture of patella left cornlo sclera tear on the left eye and the patient is not willing for surgery of fracture of patella left. Ex.A.5 bunch of medical record i.e. consolidated bills amounting for a sum of Rs.20,199/- towards medical expenses. Ex.A.6 certificate issued by the Superintendent of Government General Hospital, Kurnool shows the patient by name Hanief (PW.1) I.P.No.38150 was admitted on NTI Ward Bill post dislocation of knee with fracture patella left with cornio sclera injury of left eye on 31.10.2004 and discharged on 26.11.2004. To corroborate his evidence, the medical witness by name Dr.M.Mohan Rao, Civil Asst. Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool is examined as PW.3. According to him, the patient by name Hanief (PW1) admitted on 31.10.2004 in N.T.Ward-I with bilateral posterial dislocation of knee joint with fracture of patella left. He was treated conservatively till 26.11.2004. He was discharged from the hospital on 26.11.2004. The patient (PW1) was applied bilateral cylindrical POP casing. Simultaneously, he was taking treatment for eye problem in Regional Eye Hospital, Kurnool. Patient was referred to Eye Hospital, many times during his stay in N.T.Ward-I. He attended OP after the discharge from the Government General Hospital, Kurnool regularly for review. He also examined PW.1 on 30.06.2006. Patient was complaining of not able to sit and squat, pain in both knees joints. On examination, both knees are stiff. The patient cannot walk without support. The petitioner not able to carry daily activities and cannot lift heavy weights without support of others. The percentage of total disability is 35% on orthopedic side. He is one of the members of Medical Board of Government General Hospital as per Ex.X.1 case sheet.” Admittedly, as per Ex.A.3, injury Nos. 2 and 3 are grievous in nature and other injuries are simple in nature. The evidence of PW.3 is amply corroborated with the evidence of PW.1 and also proved Exs.A.3, A.4 and Ex.X.1 case sheet. Another Medical Officer, PW.4 Dr.Krishna Kumar was examined to prove the injuries. He deposed that he is the Chief Casuality Medical Officer in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. Ex.A.3, wound certificate was issued by him on examining the patient. He referred PW.1 to the Opthalmology Department. Later, he treated the patient in his private clinic. According to him, the petitioner lost his left eye vision due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Therefore, the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4 coupled with the documentary evidence, clearly would go to show that the petitioner sustained fracture to his both legs and was got treated in Government General Hospital, Kurnool for a period of one month and the disability estimated on the orthopedic side was 30% and that there is disability in the eye because of loss of eye sight. Having regard to the gravity of injuries, an amount of Rs.25,000/- can be granted to each grievous injury totalling to Rs.50,000/-, which is just and reasonable, besides granting Rs.5,000/- to each simple injury, which comes to Rs.10,000/-. Ex.A.5 is the bunch of medical bills for an amount of Rs.20,199/- . As per Ex.A.6 medical certificate issued by the Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Kurnool, the petitioner suffered dislocation of knee with fracture patella left with Cornio sclera injury to left eye. To corroborate his evidence, the petitioner examined PW.3 by name Dr.M.Mohan Rao, Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Kurnool. PW.3 also certified the injuries in Ex.A.3. He deposed that PW.1 was applied bilateral cylindrical POP casing. Simultaneously, he was taking treatment for his eye problem in Regional Eye Hospital Kurnool, PW.1 was referred to Eye Hospital, many times during his stay in N.T.Ward-I. On examination, both knees are stiff. The patient cannot walk without support. He is one of the members of the Medical Board of Government General Hospital. Ex.X.1 case sheet was prepared by him. Therefore, while consolidating the bunch of medical bills and the medical evidence, an amount of Rs.20,199/- is granted towards medical expenses. The Tribunal below awarded only Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. But while taking into consideration the gravity of injuries, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering which is just and reasonable. Further an amount of Rs.25,000/- is granted towards loss of left eye vision instead of Rs.15,000/- granted by the Tribunal. An amount of Rs.10,000/- is also granted towards loss of income during the period of treatment. Accordingly, in total, the petitioner is entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,30,199/- (Rs.50,000/- + 10,000/- + 20,199/- + 15,000/- + 25,000/- + 10,000/- ). Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.74,000/- to Rs.1,30,199/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. No costs. ________________ K.S.APPA RAO,J 15TH July, 2011 PNV