THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A.No.2103 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: The injured is the appellant. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda by Award dated 12-11-2002 in O.P.No.672 of 2000, awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the injured for the injuries sustained by him in motor accident which took place on 7-10- 1999 involving auto bearing No.AP 24U 1696, as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-(mistakenly typed as Rs.1,00,000/- in the order of the lower Tribunal). In this appeal, there is no dispute about the accident vehicle being insured with the second respondent/insured company and driver of the said vehicle being responsible for the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the same. The dispute is only with regard to quantum of compensation. The lower Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- for medical expenses and attendant charges and Rs.25,000/- towards disability. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the sum awarded by the lower Tribunal is too low and that the injured is barber by profession and that because of the injuries, he is not able to continue his profession. As per medical records filed and as per evidence of PW2, the Doctor, who treated the injured, the injured was having the following five fractures; they are: 1) Fracture subtrochanteric region right femur 2) Fracture acetabulum right side 3) Fracture of both pubic rami right side 4) Fracture superior pubic ramis left side 5) Fracture neck left humerus As per evidence of PW2, there was disability of 60% to the injured because of the injuries, when the injured was examined as per Exs.X1 and X2 recent X-rays. PW2 says that there was mal union of fracture acetablum right side, mal united fracture of right femur, gross shortening and limping of right lower limb to an extent of 2 inches, loss of movements at right hip and mal-united fracture neck of humerus of left side. PW2 further says that the injured needs operation to right femur and right humerus and that he cannot run, climb as usual and that he cannot lift weights and that he cannot stand for long time. When there was already mal-union of fractures, there may not be any necessity for further operations because the mal-united fractures are not going to be again fragmented for the purpose of re-union after operation. It is contended by the 2nd respondent’s counsel that PW2 did not give reasons why he arrived at the disability at 60%. No doubt, PW2 did not state as to on what scale he arrived at the percentage as 60%, whether applying Kessler scale or Mc Bride scale or any other scale. No scientific data is given for arriving at the percentage, though PW2 gave reasons in support of the disability being suffered by PW2. Having regard to various disabilities listed out by PW2 in his evidence, I am of the opinion that the compensation for the disability has to be fixed at Rs.75,000/- instead of Rs.25,000/-. Insofar as the other heads of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal is concerned, I do not propose to increase the rates because compensation for the disability is enhanced. Thus, total compensation amount comes to Rs.1,50,000/-, which is just and reasonable. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed without costs enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Rkk Dated:25-01-2011