M. NARAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment, according to Law, based on legal material placed on Record, by both the parties, arises out of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, filed by the appellant against R-1 to R-3, under Section 110-D of the repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, questioning the validity and legality of the adjudication s made by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Warangal, on its file, by order dated 4-7-1991 in O. P. No. 297 of 1988, as set forth in para 2 infra. ( 2 ) PERUSED the Award and the Decree of even date that followed the same, and also the material papers of the Record. The arguments of both the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the contesting respondents, were heard. ( 3 ) THE sole appellant herein, corresponds to the sole claimant and R-1 to R-3 correspond respectively to R1 to R3 in that O. P. No. 297 of 1988. ( 4 ) THE parties, hereinafter, shall be referred to with reference to their respective descriptions in that O. P. , unless otherwise, specifically, referred to. ( 5 ) UNDER Section 110-D of the repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Old Act ), the trial of the O. P. of the present nature will be of summary nature, and hence, so also it is in C. M. A. like the one on hand that arises therefrom. ( 6 ) AFTER due trial of the SAID o. p. No. 297 of 1988, filed by the sole claimant against R-1 to R-3, under Section 110-D of the said Old Act, for recovery of a total compensation of Rs. 98,000. 00, in respect of the injuries and disabilities etc. , sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, that occurred on 29-11-1988, around 9-30 P. M. near K. M. C. Bus stop, due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter bearing No. AAU 4600, the said Tribunal adjudicated thereupon, by the now impugned Award and Decree, as set forth in para 2 (supra), as under: Directed R-1 to R-3 to pay to the sole claimant, total compensation of Rs. 26,000. 00 with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of the O. P. till actual realisation and proportionate costs etc. 26,000. 00 with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of the O. P. till actual realisation and proportionate costs etc. ( 7 ) QUESTIONING the validity and legality of the said Award and Decree, and the foregoing adjudication s, R-1 to R-3, being respectively, the owner, the rider and the Insurance Company, all, of that accident scooter bearing No. AAU 4600, did not file any independent C. M. As. on any aspect or aspects nor did any of them file any cross-objections in the present C. M. A. ( 8 ) THE sole claimant filed the C. M. A. as set forth supra inter alia urging that the compensation awarded by the impugned Award and Decree is very low, and that, hence the same has to be enhanced to the maximum, as claimed in the O. P. to Rs. 98,000. 00 etc. ( 9 ) IN the foregoing facts and circumstances, the findings of the said Tribunal in the impugned award on issue No. 1 has to the culpability in respect of the accident and the proved injuries etc. sustained by the claimant, as with the scooter bearing No. AAU 4600, as well as the findings on issue No. 2, inter alia, in respect of the liability to pay compensation by R-1 to R-3 having become final and binding, on all the concerned due to efflux of time, prescribed to appeal there against, etc. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant relied upon four rulings of the Supreme Court, as set forth hereunder in support of his claim for enhanced compensation on different counts and heads. They are Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh1, Jai Bhagwan v. Laxman Singh Nagesha v. M. S. Krishna and Muthaiah Sekhar v. Nesamony Tpt Corpn Ltd. ( 11 ) ON issue No. 2, in para 16 of the impugned order, the Tribunal recorded that claimant sustained cracks of both the bones of right leg, and in respect thereof, there is evidence of the Doctor P. W. 3 in the Record. In respect of each of the fractures, I am of the opinion, that paying a sum of Rs. 8,500. 00, would be justifiable, making it to a total compensation of Rs. 17,000. 00. In respect of each of the fractures, I am of the opinion, that paying a sum of Rs. 8,500. 00, would be justifiable, making it to a total compensation of Rs. 17,000. 00. ( 12 ) P. W. 3, the Doctor, who is an Orthopedic surgeon, proved that the claimant sustained fractures and they did not get united. The claimant suffered temporary disability, for a period of ten months from 1-12-1988 till September, 1989. Hence, in respect, thereof, I am inclined to award Rs. 15,000. 00 which would be just compensation. ( 13 ) THE Tribunal awarded Rs. 100/- towards transportation charges, while the claimant claimed Rs. 500. 00. In that regard, I am of the opinion that Rs. 500. 00 will be the just compensation, because of hospitalization for ten months, and so to say even less. ( 14 ) TOWARDS pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,500. 00, while I am of the opinion that it will be just compensation, if the same is enhanced to Rs. 10,000. 00. ( 15 ) TOWARDS extra nourishment, food and medicines, the claim was made for Rs. 10,000. 00, while the Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,400. 00. I am of the opinion that it will be just compensation if a sum of Rs. 7,000. 00 is awarded on that count. ( 16 ) THE Tribunal correctly awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 towards loss of earnings during the temporary disablement period at Rs. 1,500. 00 per month for loss of earnings. ( 17 ) THE sum total of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs. 26,000. 00, while the sum total of the compensation enhanced in the foregoing paragraphs is Rs. 64,5000. 00, and hence, the award of the Tribunal has to be modified accordingly, as is being done hereunder. ( 18 ) HENCE, the High Court both hereby adjudicate upon the C. M. A. , modifies the award of the Tribunal as under:enhancing the total compensation awarded by the impugned award and Decree, as set forth in para 2 (supra) from Rs. 26,000. 00 to Rs. 64,500. 00, and not interfering with the same on any other aspect or aspects, awarding costs none.