JUDGMENT The present appeal is preferred by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the order and decree dated 05.09.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.169 of 2003 passed by the II Additional District Judge- cum-Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madanapalle (hereinafter referred to as ‘Claims Tribunal’), wherein, an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was awarded as against the total claim of Rs.4,00,000/- towards the compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant/petitioner. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Claims Tribunal in the original petition. 3. The petitioner filed the above said O.P., stating inter alia that on 06.01.2003 when he was returning to his home, after attending duty on his motor cycle bearing No.AP02-G-4224 and reached Sugalimitta bus stop on Punganuru-Madanapalle main road, a bus bearing No.AP03-U-4309 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, hit him while trying to overtake, as a result he fell down and sustained grievous injuries including the fractures over his left shoulder and left thigh. It is further stated that the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Punganuru and from there to an Orthopedic Surgeon by name Dr.M.Sanjeevarayudu and again from there to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore for expert treatment. While stating that he took treatment by spending Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to Rs.15,000/- for transportation and for other expenses, he further stated in the said O.P., that he could not regain normal health, sustained permanent disability and also suffered loss of earnings as a result of the accident. Accordingly, he claimed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation along with the interest @ 18% p.a., against the respondents. 4. The 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle remained exparte and the 2nd respondent-insurance company filed its counter and contested the matter. The insurance company while denying that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle contended that the petitioner himself is responsible for the accident as he was negligent in driving the motor cycle. It is also contended that the compensation as claimed by the petitioner is excessive and that he is not entitled for the compensation as prayed for. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed the relevant issues for consideration. 6. In support of his case, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1, got examined P.Ws.2 & 3 i.e., Dr.M.Sanjeevarayudu and Dr.K.M.K.Varma and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. 7. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed the relevant issues for consideration. 6. In support of his case, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1, got examined P.Ws.2 & 3 i.e., Dr.M.Sanjeevarayudu and Dr.K.M.K.Varma and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. 7. The 2nd respondent-insurance company had not adduced any oral evidence, got marked Ex.B1-Copy of policy by consent. 8. The Claims Tribunal after considering the contentions advanced by both the parties and examining the material on record by an order dated 05.09.2005 has allowed the claim of the petitioner in part. Challenging the said award to the extent which is adverse to the petitioner, the appeal has been preferred, seeking enhancement of compensation. 9. Heard Sri P.Rambhoopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant. While briefly narrating the facts of the case, he inter alia contended that the accident in question occurred when the claimant was going on his scooter and the offending lorry referred to above hit the scooter while overtaking and due to the said accident, the petitioner/claimant suffered fractures to his left shoulder and left leg apart from injuries all over the body. He submitted that, initially, the petitioner was taken to a hospital at Punganuru and thereafter to another hospital, from there to Manipal Hospital at Bangalore. He submits that screws were inserted to the petitioner/claimant and he was in hospital for several months, advised to take rest, not to lift any weights and his movement is restricted to wheel chair due to shortening of leg. He submits that meager amounts were awarded by the Claims Tribunal and though the medical bills in respect of the expenditure incurred by the petitioner/claimant were filed, the same were not considered in a proper prospective, that amounts towards pain and suffering, expectation of life were not granted. He further submits that though the petitioner filed Ex.A12-Permanent Disability Certificate, the Claims Tribunal disbelieved the same erroneously. While submitting that the claim made by the petitioner/claimant is just and reasonable, he submits that the Claims Tribunal grievously erred in not allowing the claim in toto. He submits that in view of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner/claimant, the Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the same into account and allowed the total claim for Rs.4,00,000/-. 10. He submits that in view of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner/claimant, the Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the same into account and allowed the total claim for Rs.4,00,000/-. 10. Per contra, Mr.M.R.K.Chakravarthy, representing the 2nd respondent-insurance company contended that the amounts awarded to the petitioner/claimant are just and reasonable and warrants no interference by this Court. He submits that no independent witness was examined to certify the veracity of the medical bills filed by the petitioner/claimant. He submits that the Claims Tribunal had given cogent reasons for not considering the material on record, more particularly Ex.A12-Permanent Disability Certificate. He submits that there is no evidence on record with regard to shortening of petitioner’s leg and further that he is able to attend the duties as Deputy Tahsildar and therefore the question of granting any sums towards loss of expectation of life etc., would not arise. He submits that P.W.2 who issued Ex.A12 had not treated the appellant, prior to issuance of the Disability Certificate and the Claims Tribunal has recorded cogent reasons for disbelieving the same. He further submits that as the petitioner/claimant failed to lead evidence to substantiate his case, the Claims Tribunal had rightly allowed the claim in part and he is not entitled to any further amounts. The learned counsel while placing the reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.Kumar V. United Insurance Company Limited, (2019) 12 SCC 242 contends that the Award is just, reasonable and therefore no interference is warranted. 11. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant submits that the certificate issued by P.W.2, has to be believed. While submitting that the petitioner/claimant is still limping, he contends that the petitioner/claimant has to suffer throughout the life and that credence has to be given to the disability certificate issued by P.W.2. He also submits that the claim towards the pain and suffering due to grievous injuries etc., are required to be considered liberally and the Claims Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim by considering the fact that the petitioner/claimant has to maintain himself by suffering, throughout the life. He further submits that merely because leave was granted to the petitioner/claimant, he cannot be deprived of loss of earnings. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioner/claimant is entitled for the amounts claimed in the O.P., and seeks enhancement of compensation. 12. He further submits that merely because leave was granted to the petitioner/claimant, he cannot be deprived of loss of earnings. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioner/claimant is entitled for the amounts claimed in the O.P., and seeks enhancement of compensation. 12. In support of his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant also placed reliance on the judgments in Kanayyalal V. Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 2004 ACJ 653 . B.Anandhi V. R.Latha and another, 2002 ACJ 233 . Prem Narayan Sharma V. Sunil Gupta and Others, 2003 ACJ 1584 and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Erudhaya Priya V. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC Online SC 601. 13. The contentions of both the counsel are examined in the light of material available on record and the judgments relied on by them. The principal contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant is that the Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving Ex.A12-Permanent Disability Certificate. The said Certificate was issued by P.W.2-Dr.Sanjeevarayudu, assessing the permanent disability of the petitioner at 25%. However, P.W.2 in his cross examination categorically admitted that he has not treated P.W.1/claimant prior to issuance of Ex.A12. The other doctor P.W.3 who treated the petitioner/claimant in Manipal Hospital though deposed that the claimant suffered disability at 25%, no permanent disability certificate to that effect was issued by him. In this regard, it is to be noted that the Claims Tribunal recorded valid and cogent reasons in Para Nos.9 to 11 of the Award pointing out inter alia that though the Medical Board is constituted in Sri Venkateswara Ramanarayana Ruya Government General Hospital, Tirupathi, which is competent to issue permanent disability certificates to the concerned patients, no such certificate was obtained by the petitioner/appellant from the said hospital, so as to create confidence in the mind of the Court. The Claims Tribunal also pointed out that in Ex.A4-Discharge Summary issued by the Manipal Hospital, Bangalore, there is no mention with regard to the disability of the petitioner/claimant. Under the said circumstances, the findings of the Claims Tribunal with regard to Ex.A12-Permanent Disability Certificate, cannot be said to be perverse and calls for no interference. 14. But the evidence of P.W.3, who treated the injuries sustained by the petitioner/claimant and conducted surgery cannot simply be ignored merely because he has not issued the disability certificate. Under the said circumstances, the findings of the Claims Tribunal with regard to Ex.A12-Permanent Disability Certificate, cannot be said to be perverse and calls for no interference. 14. But the evidence of P.W.3, who treated the injuries sustained by the petitioner/claimant and conducted surgery cannot simply be ignored merely because he has not issued the disability certificate. In his evidence, he categorically deposed with regard to insertion of screws, shortening of petitioner’s left leg by one inch, also the need for another surgery in future and that the cost of the same approximately in a semi special ward would be about Rs.75,000/-. In his cross examination, he categorically stated that the petitioner can attend his sedentary work, but he cannot attend executive work where walking or climbing of stairs is required. He also testified about issuance of medical bills i.e., Ex.A5, Ex.7, Ex.A11 and Ex.A13-X Ray/bone scan taken in their hospital. However, the Claims Tribunal on the ground that the concerned person/persons who issued such bills were not examined, granted Rs.50,000/- as against the total claim of medical expenditure for Rs.1,00,000/-. 15. Considering the evidence of the P.W.3 and the injuries sustained by the petitioner/claimant, this Court is of the considered view that the Claims Tribunal committed a grave error in awarding meagre sums towards compensation apart from restricting the amount towards medical bills. 16. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant. In Erudhaya Priya’s case(5 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring to the principles set out in Jagdish v. Mohan [reported in (2018) 4 SCC 571 ] regarding determination of compensation in respect of victim who suffered permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident enhanced the compensation. In Kanayyalal’s case(2 supra), a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, after referring to a catena of judgments in respect of cases pertaining to injuries and determination of compensation with regard to the same, found fault with the conservative manner in which the Claims Tribunal awarded the compensation and inter alia held as follows: “……….It is quite often said and reiterated that no amount of compensation in personal injury cases would compensate the pain and suffering sustained by the injured. However, the only way an injured can be redressed is by way of awarding reasonable compensation. However, the only way an injured can be redressed is by way of awarding reasonable compensation. Therefore, the MACT is under a solemn legal obligation to award just, reasonable and adequate compensation to an injured. Of course, the adequacy of compensation is not in the perception of the injured, but adequacy of compensation should be the outcome of the application of judicious mind of the Court to the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record “ 17. The Hon’ble Division Bench while enhancing the compensation also granted compensation towards attendant charges, transportation charges, special food and nutrition etc; 18. Dealing with a case of injuries, a Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Prem Narayana Sharma’s case(4 supra) held as follows: “the award of compensation in the injury cases has to be more compared to fatal cases, since in the former case, the amount of compensation is for suffering of the injuries and the injured has to bear the pain throughout the remaining period of his life and has to utilize the compensation for himself.” 19. In the case of S.Kumar(DEAD)(1 supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the insurance company, the victim therein had tried to falsify the nature and extent of his injuries and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court. The facts and circumstances of the present case are different and therefore the said judgment would not apply to the same. 20. In the light of the above legal position coupled with the oral and documentary evidence on record, the compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be enhanced. 21. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation, keeping in view the grievous nature of injuries, which is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. As per the evidence on record, the petitioner/claimant suffered “Displaced left Intertrochanteric fracture + Displaced proximal humerus fracture of left side” and plates and screws were fixed. The Claims Tribunal though treated the said injuries as grievous, awarded only Rs.25,000/- which is very meagre and therefore the same is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. As per the evidence on record, the petitioner/claimant suffered “Displaced left Intertrochanteric fracture + Displaced proximal humerus fracture of left side” and plates and screws were fixed. The Claims Tribunal though treated the said injuries as grievous, awarded only Rs.25,000/- which is very meagre and therefore the same is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. The Claims Tribunal awarded a lump sum of Rs.25,000/- towards permanent disability, but taking into account the evidence of P.W.3-Doctor that there is shortening of leg and the petitioner/claimant would not be in a position to work freely or climb steps etc., and since the petitioner has to suffer throughout the life, keeping in the expression of the Hon’ble Division Benches referred to supra, it would be appropriate to enhance the same to Rs.1,00,000/-. So far as medical expenses are concerned, the Claims Tribunal without quantifying the amount under the said head, awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses, transportation, extra nourishment and other expenses. The Claims Tribunal is not justified in awarding the said sum though Exs.A5 and A11-medical bills for Rs.77,027/- and Rs.5,781.30 ps., were supported by the evidence of P.W.3-Doctor. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.82,808/- rounded off to Rs.83,000/- towards medical expenses exclusively. Apart from the same, as is evident from the record, the petitioner/claimant visited the Hospital at Bangalore on several occasions for treatment and accompanied by attendants. Though, the Claims Tribunal without quantifying the amounts, awarded transportation charges, extra nourishment and other expenses as mentioned above, it would reasonable to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and the same is reasonable. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings and the same is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. It is clear from the evidence on record that the petitioner is required to undergo second surgery and the approximate costs as per the evidence of P.W.3 is Rs.75,000/-. In view of the same, the petitioner/claimant is awarded the said sum of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards transportation, medicines, extra nourishment charges. 22. Thus, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,25,000/- to Rs.3,88,000/- together with interest @ 9% p.a., as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation against respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. 22. Thus, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,25,000/- to Rs.3,88,000/- together with interest @ 9% p.a., as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation against respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The enhanced compensation together with interest shall be deposited within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the petitioner/claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. 23. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand dismissed.