JUDGMENT : J. Uma Devi, J. 1. Since these appeals arise out of the order dated 5.9.2006 passed in OP No. 7 of 2004 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge, Nalgonda, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For the convenient sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as the 'petitioner' and the 'respondent' as they are arrayed in the aforementioned OP. 3. MACMA No. 344 of 2007 is filed by the petitioner in OP No. 7 of 2004 having not been satisfied with the compensation amount of Rs. 2,03,780/- awarded to him in respect of the injuries received by him in the accident dated 11.8.2003. 4. MACMA No. 3883 of 2011 is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, the respondent No. 3 in OP No. 7 of 2004 disputing the quantification of the amount of compensation of Rs. 2,03,780/- awarded by the Tribunal. 5. The facts of the case are briefly stated as under : That on 11.8.2003 while the petitioner was proceeding on a Hero-Honda motorcycle bearing No. AP-9-AB-9084 driven by him from Alair towards Vanagpally alongwith his colleague Ramachandraiah, when they reached near Bahupate Bus Stage at about 4.15 p.m., an oil tanker bearing No. TN-21-A-3555 which came from Hyderabad side in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle driven by him, as a result of it, he sustained fracture injuries to right thigh and right hip joint and the pillion rider Ramachandraiah died. Police of Alair registered a case in Cr. No. 56 of 2003 under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC against the driver of the offending oil tanker. The petitioner laid the claim for compensation of Rs. 4.00 lakhs as against the respondents 1 to 3 who were the driver, owner and insurer of the offending oil tanker bearing No. TN-21-A-3555. 6. Respondents 1 and 2 who were the driver and owner of the offending oil tanker bearing No. TN-21-A-3555 remained ex parte. The respondent No. 3-insurer of the offending oil tanker alone contested the OP. 7. The petitioner examined himself as PW1 apart from examining the Administrative Officer of District Police Office, Nalgonda and Dr. J.V.S. Vidyasagar P.Ws. 2 and 3 and marked Exs. A1 to A8. Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company examined RW1 and marked Exs. B1 and B2. The respondent No. 3-insurer of the offending oil tanker alone contested the OP. 7. The petitioner examined himself as PW1 apart from examining the Administrative Officer of District Police Office, Nalgonda and Dr. J.V.S. Vidyasagar P.Ws. 2 and 3 and marked Exs. A1 to A8. Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company examined RW1 and marked Exs. B1 and B2. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed before it by both the parties, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the oil tanker bearing. No. TN-21-A-3555 by its driver and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,03,780/- and made the owner and insurer of it liable to pay such amount to the petitioner. 8. The contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal filed by him are precisely stated as under: The prime contention of the petitioner is that the Tribunal, without proper appreciation of the evidence given by PW2, the Administrative Officer of the District Police Office, Nalgonda who spoke about the leave availed by the petitioner to take treatment for the injuries he received in the accident, and the pain and trauma he suffered on account of the fracture injuries he received in the accident, and the surgeries he underwent and the further surgeries which he has to undergo in future, awarded a meagre compensation of Rs. 2,03,780/-. According to the petitioner, the evidence given by PW3 who advised the petitioner to undergo two other surgeries for replacement of knee joint and hip joint in future which costs about Rs. 3,35,000/-, was not at all taken into consideration and due to improper appreciation of such crucial and important piece of evidence which was required to be taken into account for awarding reasonable and adequate compensation, he was forced to suffer the decree and award that was passed erroneously. It was also contened by the petitioner that no compensation amount was awarded to him under the head of attendant charges, extra-nourishment and transport charges. It was also contened by the petitioner that no compensation amount was awarded to him under the head of attendant charges, extra-nourishment and transport charges. The learned Counsel, while concluding his submissions, stated that the disability which the petitioner attained on account of the fracture injuries received to his right thigh and right hip joint is permanent in nature, and taking into consideration of the pain and trauma he suffered due to the said injuries, and his inability to lead the normal life, this Court by exercising discretionary power vested in it, can award just and reasonable compensation. The contention of the petitioner was also that the Tribunal awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs without specifying the amount of compensation, if any, awarded to the petitioner towards personal damages and general damages etc., without looking into the settled proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2012 (3) ALD 53 (SC). 9. The grounds urged by the Insurance Company in MA CMA No. 3883 of 2011 are briefly stated as under:- Computation of compensation amount of Rs. 2,03,780/- and fixing of liability to pay such compensation amount as against the Insurance Company was contrary to the provisions of law and there was no justification as such in granting lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,03,780/-. The medical expenditure incurred by him was reimbursed under Arogya Bhadratha Scheme. Though this fact was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, it awarded compensation of Rs. 2,03,780/-, and the compensation so awarded was highly excessive and exorbitant. 10. These being the contentions raised by the petitioner and the Insurance Company in their respective appeals which relate to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, I find it unnecessary to go into the correctness or validity of the findings of the Tribunal on the point of negligence attributed to the driver of the crime vehicle. Therefore, I am not inclined to dissent from the view taken by the Tribunal on the aspect of negligence, if any, attributed to the driver of the oil tanker bearing No. TN-21-A-3555. 11. Therefore, I am not inclined to dissent from the view taken by the Tribunal on the aspect of negligence, if any, attributed to the driver of the oil tanker bearing No. TN-21-A-3555. 11. So far as the contentions raised by both sides on the aspect of quantum of compensation is concerned, it was deposed by the petitioner during his examination, that in the aforementioned accident he received fracture to anterior part of right thigh, muscle exposed, ribs were fractured, there was dislocation of right hip and displaced fracture of medial condoyle of right femur, chip of proximal pole of patella right. The medical officer, whom the petitioner examined as PW3 through Advocate Commissioner deposed that he examined the petitioner on 11.8.2003 at 7.25 p.m. and noticed fracture dislocation of right hip joint, and fracture of medial condoyle of right femur and fracture of upper pole of patella bone with dislocation of patella etc. It was further deposed by PW3 that on 12.8.2003 he conducted surgery for correctness of dislocated hip joint, and did skin grafting to the right thigh, skeletal traction was applied to maintain the hip, fracture of acetabulum was fixed with screws and discharged the petitioner on 4.10.2003 from the hospital with an advice to walk with the aid of walker without putting weight on the leg. As per the evidence given by PW3, the petitioner was re-admitted in his hospital on 13.8.2004 for removal of screws and fixation and sinus tract excision was done on 14.8.2004 and was discharged on 28.8.2004 with an advice to use antibiotics and to walk with the aid of a stick. Likewise again on 16.6.2004 he was re-admitted for implant removal from right hip and the same was done on 17.6.2004 and was discharged on 28.6.2004. The petitioner was again admitted in his hospital on 9.3.2005 for debridement, and flap coverage was done by the plastic surgeon and was discharged on 16.4.2005 with the advice to come for follow up treatment in the plastic surgery department. 12. The petitioner's main contention was that the Tribunal, though observed in its order that the evidence of PW3 plays vital role in deciding the quantum of compensation, it has not thoroughly appreciated his evidence in a proper perspective. The wound certificate produced by the petitioner (Ex. A3) discloses that he received crush injury over the anterior part of right thigh, and multiple rib fractures. The wound certificate produced by the petitioner (Ex. A3) discloses that he received crush injury over the anterior part of right thigh, and multiple rib fractures. The Tribunal, even after noticing that the claimant underwent several surgeries and was advised to undergo further surgeries in future regarding which clear and clinching evidence was given by the doctor-PW3 who treated him, discarded his testimony in respect of the amount of Rs. 3,35,000/- which the petitioner has to incur for replacement of hip joint and knee joint etc. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- considering the nature of fracture injuries received by the petitioner to the vital parts, and the repeated surgeries underwent by the petitioner. In my opinion, the Tribunal is not correct in awarding lump sum compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs without specifying the amounts to be awarded towards pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. These are the compelling circumstances which made me to intervene. 13. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3780/- towards medical treatment. It is true that evidence is there in the record to show that whatever amounts mentioned in the bills produced by the petitioner are paid to him, but the pain and trauma which he is put to suffer has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while awarding the compensation. Though the pain and trauma which the petitioner was put to suffer due to the injuries he received in the accident cannot be compensated in terms of money, reasonable compensation towards pain and suffering may have been awarded. Having due regard to the fact that the petitioner is put to suffer the trauma on account of the physical injuries said to be received in the accident i.e., fractures to right thigh and right hip joint for which he has already undergone several surgeries and is advised to undergo two further surgeries etc., this Court is of the view that awarding of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering is just and reasonable. 14. It is evident from the material available in the case record that no separate amounts are awarded to the petitioner towards extra-nourishment, transport charges and attendant charges. Therefore, this Court awards Rs. 10,000/- under the head of extra-nourishment and another Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant charges is just and reasonable. 15. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering is just and reasonable. 14. It is evident from the material available in the case record that no separate amounts are awarded to the petitioner towards extra-nourishment, transport charges and attendant charges. Therefore, this Court awards Rs. 10,000/- under the head of extra-nourishment and another Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant charges is just and reasonable. 15. It is not in dispute that the petitioner underwent surgeries for several times and during the time of his hospitalization he might have incurred substantial amounts towards transportation. On consideration of the aforementioned facts which the other side has not disputed, this Court is of the view that awarding of Rs. 10,000/- under the head of transportation charges is fair and reasonable. 16. The petitioner was aged about 34 years and he was working as a constable at Nalgonda by the date of accident. It is evident from the material on record that on account of the fracture injuries he received to his right thigh, and right hip joint for which he underwent several surgeries and was forced to get himself admitted in the hospital again and again for taking treatment etc. It is also evident from the material available in the case record that, he was admitted in the hospital of PW3 on 11.8.2003, he underwent surgery for reduction of dislocated hip joint and skin grafting was done. He was discharged from the hospital on 4.10.2003. The evidence given by PW3 in this regard would clinchingly establish the fact that he was in the hospital nearly for a period of two months when he was admitted for the first time to undergo surgery for correction of fractured leg bone. He was in the hospital for a period of 15 days when he was re-admitted in the hospital on 13.8.2004 for removal of screws, fixation and sinus tract excision, and was discharged on 28.8.2004, later for about 12 days i.e., from 16.6.2004 to 28.6.2004 when he was re-admitted in the hospital for implant removal from the right hip joint. Likewise, he was in the hospital for a period of 37 days when he was again admitted in the hospital on 9.3.2005 for debridement, and during that time, flap coverage was done by a plastic surgeon and was discharged on 16.4.2005. 17. Thus the petitioner was compelled to apply for leave to take treatment. Likewise, he was in the hospital for a period of 37 days when he was again admitted in the hospital on 9.3.2005 for debridement, and during that time, flap coverage was done by a plastic surgeon and was discharged on 16.4.2005. 17. Thus the petitioner was compelled to apply for leave to take treatment. In the evidence given by PW2 the details of leave applied by the petitioner to take treatment were clearly deposed. His evidence indicates that the petitioner was on leave for a period of (82) days and it happened only because of his involvement in the accident. Had he not received injuries in the accident, there was no need for him to apply for leave to take treatment in hospital by getting himself admitted in hospital of PW3 again and again, and he being a permanent employee, he was entitled to earned leave As per the evidence of PW2, the Administrative Officer, his monthly salary was Rs. 5618/- and for (82) days the loss of salary comes to Rs. 15,355/-. Therefore, this Court awards Rs. 15,000/- under the head of loss of salary. 18. Though the petitioner underwent several surgeries, he could not regain normal position and was advised to undergo further surgeries for replacement of hip joint and knee joint. The evidence given by PW3 on the above aspect is not thoroughly appreciated by the Tribunal while awarding lump sum amount of Rs. 2,03,780/-. The Tribunal ought to have taken the above factual aspects which are borne out by the record into consideration while assessing the compensation. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner is not in a position to lead normal life, on account of the injuries received by him to his right thigh and right hip joint, and may not be in a position to enjoy the life as he was enjoying prior to the accident. Having regard to the aforementioned aspects regarding which clinching evidence is there in the record, the Court is of the view that awarding of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life is just and reasonable. 19. It is abundantly clear from the evidence available in the case record particularly from the evidence of PW3 that the petitioner has to undergo further surgery. The expenditure which the petitioner may have to incur is about Rs. 3,35,000/- as deposed by PW3. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life is just and reasonable. 19. It is abundantly clear from the evidence available in the case record particularly from the evidence of PW3 that the petitioner has to undergo further surgery. The expenditure which the petitioner may have to incur is about Rs. 3,35,000/- as deposed by PW3. It may be true that whatever expenditure incurred by the petitioner under medical expenditure, will be reimbursed to him when claim is made by him on production of all the medical bills and prescriptions, but it cannot be expected that for every expenditure incurred there will be some receipts, but the fact which the petitioner is able to establish through the evidence of PW3 is that he has to necessarily undergo further surgery. Taking into consideration of the evidence given by PW3 in this regard, this Court is of the view that awarding a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head of further medical expenditure and other incidental expenditure is just and reasonable. Thus the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 2,98,780/- under all heads and it is rounded off to Rs. 3,00,000/-. 20. In view of the aforementioned discussion made by me, there cannot be any hesitation for the Court to hold that the appeal filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 2,03,780/- to Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only). 21. In the result, MACMA No. 3883 of 2011 is dismissed and MACMA No. 344 of 2007 is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 2,03,780/- to Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) together with interest @ 7.5% per annum payable by the respondents jointly and severally from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. 22. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.