Judgment Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal challenging the award dt. 24-9-2004 passed in OP No.1246/1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Clams Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad. 2. The claimant filed claim petition claiming compensation to an extent of Rs.2,20,000/-in respect of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. The tribunal after considering the material on record, awarded a sum of Rs.34,500/-towards compensation on account of injuries sustained by the claimant. 3. The facts which led to filing of the appeal are as follows: On 15-11-1998, the claimant was going by walk on the side of the road from Court road towards Idgah road at Nirmal. At about 1-30 PM, when he was in front of MRO quarters near Sharad Mahal, an auto bearing registration No. AP 1 T 3082 driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite side and dashed against the claimant. Due to which, he fell down, and front wheel of the auto ran over the legs of the claimant, resulting in fracture of right leg, neck of femur, injuries to left leg, head and others parts of the body. Immediately, the claimant was admitted in Government Hospital, Nirmal and thereafter he was referred to Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad, where Dr. Ramulu treated him. From there he was shifted to Orthopedic hospital. In respect of the above incident, the police registered a case in Cr.No.223/1998 under Section 337 IPC of Nirmal I Town Police Station against the driver of the auto. Ex.A-1 is the First Information Report. After completing investigation, the police filed charge sheet and the same was brought on record as Ex.A-2. 4. The first respondent, who is the owner of the auto, in OP, remained ex parte before the tribunal. 5. The second respondent, who is the insurer of the vehicle-auto, in OP, filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition with regard to age, manner of accident, occupation, income of the claimant and also injuries sustained by the claimant. According to him, the driver was not having valid licence, and as such, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the auto. If really, the incident took place, there is no reason why the same was not informed to them at the earliest point of time. According to him, the driver was not having valid licence, and as such, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the auto. If really, the incident took place, there is no reason why the same was not informed to them at the earliest point of time. It is further alleged that the compensation claimed by the claimant under various heads is highly excessive, arbitrary and against law, facts and out of all proportions. 6. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the petitioner are entitled to compensation sought for? 2. To what relief? 7. In support of his case, the claimant himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined one Dr. Ramulu, who was Orthopedic Doctor at Government General Hospital, Nizamabad as P.W.2. He got marked Ex.A-1 to A-8 and Exs.C-1 and C-2. No oral evidence has been adduced on behalf of the second respondent, but Ex.B-1-insurance policy was marked. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company. Perused the entire record. 9. P.W.1 who is the injured himself in the case narrates the manner in which the accident took place. Though he was subjected to cross-examination, the insurance company could not elicit anything in their favour. The tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A-1 and A-2, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto. The said finding has become final as the same has not been challenged in appeal by the insurance company. 10. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of available on record awarded only a sum of Rs.34,500/- as compensation as against the claim of Rs.2,20,000/- in lump sum. It may be noted here, according to wound certificate covered under Ex.A-3, the age of the injured was shown as 70 years at the time of accident. However, in the charge sheet, the claimant is shown as L.W.2 and his age is shown as 70 years. Even, the Doctor who treated him in the hospital showed the age of the claimant as 70 years. It is not in dispute, the accident took place on 15-11-1998, in which the claimant sustained injuries. Ex.A-3-wound certificate dt. However, in the charge sheet, the claimant is shown as L.W.2 and his age is shown as 70 years. Even, the Doctor who treated him in the hospital showed the age of the claimant as 70 years. It is not in dispute, the accident took place on 15-11-1998, in which the claimant sustained injuries. Ex.A-3-wound certificate dt. 15-11-1998 clearly shows there was an abrasion on the back of left ankle-fresh bleeding and pain on right joint-not able to walk-tenderness over hip joint. X-ray taken at Siddi Ramulu’s clinic on 15-11-1998, indicates the facture on right neck femur, which is grievous in nature. In view of the fracture, the claimant was referred to Orthopedic Surgeon. The second respondent-insurance company did not dispute the contents in Ex.A-3. 11. P.W.1 stated in his evidence that he was admitted as in-patient in Government Hospital at Nirmal for two days and thereafter, he was referred to Government Hospital, Nizamabad and thereafter he went to a private clinic. He underwent an operation for his fracture, whereby a steel rod was inserted. According to him, he was an in-patient in hospital for about 10 days. Though P.W.1 was cross-examined, nothing useful was elicited from him with regard to manner of accident and with regard to nature injuries sustained by him. The second respondent in the said OP did not lead any evidence to controvert the injuries sustained by the claimant. Taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1, Ex.A-3 would certificate and Ex.A-4 discharge certificate, the tribunal awarded compensation to an extent of Rs.25,000/- towards disability; Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.4,500/- towards loss of earning for a period of three months. 12. This court feels that the amount awarded by the tribunal towards pain and suffering appears to be unreasonable. The claimant was an old man aged about 70 years by the date of incident. The amount of mental trauma, pain and suffering, which he would have incurred at the time of accident/hospitalization and at the time of operation cannot be equated in terms of money. Therefore, this court feels a further sum of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded towards pain and suffering. 13. The incident took place on 15-11-1998 at Nirmal. Initially, he was admitted in Government Hospital at Nirmal and from there he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nizamabad. Therefore, this court feels a further sum of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded towards pain and suffering. 13. The incident took place on 15-11-1998 at Nirmal. Initially, he was admitted in Government Hospital at Nirmal and from there he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nizamabad. Definitely, he must have incurred some expenditure in going to hospital at Nirmal and from there to Nizamabad. A sum of Rs.2,500/- is awarded towards transport charges. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant–claimant contends that the claimant is a old man and he requires an assistance of an attendant in the hospital for 10 days and he was also operated in a private hospital, for that he must have incurred some expenditure towards medicines. 15. In R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) Private Limited (1995) 1 SCC 551 ), the Supreme Court while dealing with a case involving claim of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, observed that whenever a tribunal or a court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards.; 16. It is known law that the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial legislation, the Courts should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent. In order to arrive just compensation, this court can award compensation, which the appellant could have incurred expenses while he was in the hospital. There is no dispute with regard to the operation. If an operation is done to the claimant who was aged about 70 years, definitely some one would have attended on him while he was in hospital. Considering the above aspects into consideration, this court awards a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges and medical expenses. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for compensation to an extent of Rs.47,000/-. The enhanced compensation of Rs.12,500/- will carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 17. With the above enhancement in the compensation, the appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.