JUDGMENT : This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 24.06.2015, in M.V.O.P. No.511 of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The appellant herein is no other than the claimant before the Tribunal in M.V.O.P. No.511 of 2012. The respondents herein are no other than the respondents in M.V.O.P. No.511 of 2012, who are owner of the Tractor trolley bearing registration No.AP-04AJ-6894 (for short, ‘the offending vehicle’) involved in the accident and the insurance company respectively. 3. The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 4. The petitioner laid a claim before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of the injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 22.02.2012 at about 04:30 p.m. near Raja Saheb Peta on Seetharamapuram – Porumamilla road, in which the driver of the offending vehicle had involved. The case of the petitioner, in substance, according to the claim filed by him before the Tribunal, is that he was aged about 38 years at the time of accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. On 22.02.2012 morning, he went to Porumamilla on a motorcycle on his personal work. After completion of his work, he left Porumamilla on the same motorcycle. He was proceeding on the same motorcycle on the left side of the road. At about 04:30 p.m., when he reached near Raja Saheb Peta on Seetharamapuram – Porumamilla road, the offending vehicle of the first respondent bearing registration No.AP-04-AJ-6894 came in opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner. Petitioner fell down from his motorcycle and sustained serious fracture injuries. He was taken to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. He lodged a report at RIMS Hospital before the Police, which was registered as a case in Crime No.20 of 2012 of Porumamilla Police Station, and after completion of investigation, Police laid charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. The accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Petitioner sustained a fracture to his right upper thigh, over chest and other parts of the body. The accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Petitioner sustained a fracture to his right upper thigh, over chest and other parts of the body. From RIMS Hospital, Kadapa he was taken to Himalaya Multi Specialty Hospital, Kadapa where the doctors conducted a surgery to the fractured injury by inserting rods, plates and screws and he was in the hospital for 20 days as inpatient. After discharge from the Himalaya Multi Specialty Hospital, Kadapa he took treatment from private orthopedic surgeons at Kadapa. He incurred Rs.20,000/- towards treatment, medicines and extra-nourishment; Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges. He also incurred transport expenses of Rs.5,000/- and attendant charges. In spite of the treatment, the fractures are not united properly. The petitioner is not able to perform the agricultural operations as like he did prior to the date of accident. 5. Petitioner in his affidavit apportioned the claim of compensation under different heads. He apportioned Rs.25,000/- towards treatment, medicines and extra nourishment. He apportioned Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- towards permanent disability and loss of amenities in life and further compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of earning power and thus he has shown the total amount of Rs.6,00,000/- but restricted his claim to Rs.2,50,000/-. 6. First respondent is owner of the offending vehicle and second respondent is the insurer and both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. 7. The first respondent, owner, remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 8. The second respondent, insurance company, got filed a counter denying the averments in the Petition and resisting the claim. The contention of second respondent in substance is that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent inexperienced driving of the motorcycle by the petitioner, when he lost control over the vehicle. The allegation that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner is all false. Petitioner has to prove the factum of receipt of injuries, including permanent disability as pleaded, and he has to prove the medical expenditure incurred and his source of income prior to the accident and loss of earnings. He has to further prove the allegation that the fracture was not united properly. Hence the Petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Petitioner has to prove the factum of receipt of injuries, including permanent disability as pleaded, and he has to prove the medical expenditure incurred and his source of income prior to the accident and loss of earnings. He has to further prove the allegation that the fracture was not united properly. Hence the Petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial : 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a vehicular accident occurred on 22.02.2012 at 04:30 p.m., near Raja Sahebpeta on Seetharamapuram – Porumamilla main road due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor and trolley bearing No.AP 04AJ 6894 belonging to first respondent which is insured with the second respondent? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation for the injuries sustained by petitioner, if so to what extent? 3. Whether the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner? 4. To what relief? 10. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner got himself examined as PW.1 and further examined PW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the second respondent, RW.1 and RW.2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 and Exs.X-1 to X-6 were marked. 11. The Tribunal, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, answered the issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner but granted a sum of Rs.1,01,000/- towards compensation. The Tribunal, while awarding the said compensation, apportioned Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment; Rs.25,000/- in the shape of future medical expenses under the count of permanent disability; Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment and transportation and Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities in life. 12. Feeling that the compensation so awarded is not just and reasonable, the petitioner therein filed the present Appeal with a prayer to enhance the compensation. 13. In the light of the contentions advanced, in deciding this Appeal, now the points that arise for consideration are as follows : 1. Whether the quantum of compensation under various heads awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner is just and reasonable? If not so, whether the compensation is liable to be interfered with by enhancing the same? 2. To what relief? POINT Nos.1 & 2: 14. Whether the quantum of compensation under various heads awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner is just and reasonable? If not so, whether the compensation is liable to be interfered with by enhancing the same? 2. To what relief? POINT Nos.1 & 2: 14. Sri D. Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, would contend that though the appellant raised various contentions under various heads with regard to awarding of compensation but the main grievance of the appellant is that, as against 40% of permanent disability under Ex.A-4, the Tribunal could only grant Rs.25,000/- under the guise of future medical expenses, which is meager according to the petitioner. His another submission is that though the petitioner filed Exs.A-5 and A-6, which are the medical receipts, claiming the medical expenditure of Rs.9,899.28 (rounded off to Rs.9,900/-) + Rs.26,700/- but the Tribunal without furnishing any reasons only awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses. The factum of the treatment to the petitioner in the form of surgical intervention and further surgery to remove the implants is not in dispute. The expenditure under Exs.A-5 and A-6 was on account of the surgical procedure and there is no justification on the part of the Tribunal to deny the medical expenditure as claimed under Exs.A-5 and A-6. He would further submit that though the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- but he could not show the compensation under proper heads and when the petitioner underwent two surgical procedures, awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- only for the grievous injury on account of the pain and suffering is not justified and it is liable to be interfered with. With the above submissions, learned counsel for the appellant would seek to enhance the compensation towards permanent disability, medical expenditure and further towards pain and suffering. 15. Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurance company, would submit that on thorough analyzation of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal arrived at a just conclusion to award compensation of Rs.1,01,000/- to the petitioner, which is not liable to be enhanced. 16. It is a case where the petitioner (PW.1) filed his chief-examination affidavit putting forth the facts in tune with his pleadings. Through his chief-examination, Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. Ex.A-1 is certified copy of FIR in Crime No.20 of 2012 of Porumamilla Police Station. 16. It is a case where the petitioner (PW.1) filed his chief-examination affidavit putting forth the facts in tune with his pleadings. Through his chief-examination, Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. Ex.A-1 is certified copy of FIR in Crime No.20 of 2012 of Porumamilla Police Station. Ex.A-2 is certified copy of wound certificate. Ex.A-3 is the certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A-4 is the disability certificate issued by District Medical Board, Kadapa. Ex.A-5 is the bunch of medical bills and prescriptions issued by Vidya Sagar Hospital, Kadapa. Ex.A-6 is the final bill along with receipt and Ex.A-7 is the discharge summary issued by Vidya Sagar Orthopedic and Joint Replacement Hospital, Kadapa. The petitioner further examined PW.2, who claimed to have issued the disability certificate under Ex.A-4. According to him, the petitioner suffered the following injuries : 1. Malunited fracture shaft of right femur with an evidence of removal of the implant. 2. Osteoporosis of the surrounding bones of right hip. 3. Painful and restricted movements of right hip and knee. 4. Difficulty to stand on the affected limb, difficulty to squat and cross legged. 5. Antalgic gait present. 17. Basing on the above injuries, PW.2 testified that the disability of the petitioner is 40%. 18. The representative of the second respondent i.e., B. Kamalakannan, Claims Officer - RW.1, got filed his chief-examination affidavit and his evidence is that there were violations of policy terms and conditions and the insurance company did not issue any policy with regard to the trailer and the trailer was attached with the tractor at the time of accident and as there were violations, first respondent alone is liable to pay compensation. Through his examination in chief, Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. Ex.B-1 is attested true policy copy along with terms and conditions. Ex.B-2 is the letter addressed by second respondent to the insured and driver along with a receipt. Ex.B-3 is the corresponding acknowledgment cards (2). 19. The second respondent got examined RW.2, the Senior Assistant in the Office of RTO, Proddatur. Through his examination in chief, Exs.X-1 to X-6 are marked. Ex.X-1 is the authorization letter authorizing him to give evidence. Ex.X-2 is the R.C. extract of vehicle bearing No.AP 04 AJ 6894. Ex.X-3 is the extract of R.C. of Trailer bearing No.AP 04 TT 4353. Ex.X-4 is the extract of F.C. Ex.X-5 is the extract of goods carriage permit for the trailer. Ex.X-1 is the authorization letter authorizing him to give evidence. Ex.X-2 is the R.C. extract of vehicle bearing No.AP 04 AJ 6894. Ex.X-3 is the extract of R.C. of Trailer bearing No.AP 04 TT 4353. Ex.X-4 is the extract of F.C. Ex.X-5 is the extract of goods carriage permit for the trailer. Ex.X-6 is the extract of driving license of person by name Adusumalli Madhava, driver of offending vehicle. 20. It is to be noted that the facts and circumstances are such that basing on the report of PW.1, Police registered the FIR against the driver of offending vehicle and, after due investigation, filed the charge sheet. PW.1 is the injured victim. His evidence coupled with the wound certificate proves the nature of injuries received. Insofar as the findings of the Tribunal that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle and that first respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle and the second respondent being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, they are not under challenge by the contesting second respondent by way of any cross-appeal. So the scope of the Appeal is limited one, in the light of the grounds of Appeal and the contentions advanced, as to whether the compensation that was awarded to the petitioner is just and reasonable or not. 21. Even during the course of hearing on behalf of the second respondent/insurance company, the findings of the Tribunal as regards issue Nos.1 and 2 are not at all sought to be disturbed. So, there was convincing evidence adduced by the petitioner insofar as the contention that the accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the petitioner received grievous injuries and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 22. Though the petitioner claimed compensation under various heads to a tune of Rs.2,50,000/- but, while adjudicating, the Tribunal has every power to award just and reasonable compensation under different heads. Firstly, I would like to deal with the medical expenditure. As seen from Ex.A-5, the medical expenditure was to a tune of Rs.9,900/-. As seen from Ex.A-6, the medical expenditure was to a tune of Rs.26,700/- According to Ex.A-5, the medicines were purchased on the prescription of Dr. Firstly, I would like to deal with the medical expenditure. As seen from Ex.A-5, the medical expenditure was to a tune of Rs.9,900/-. As seen from Ex.A-6, the medical expenditure was to a tune of Rs.26,700/- According to Ex.A-5, the medicines were purchased on the prescription of Dr. C. Vidya Sagar Reddy of Vidya Sagar Hospital, Kadapa. Apart from this, Ex.A-6 is the receipt issued by Dr. C. Vidya Sagar Reddy i.e., Vidyasagar Hospitals. The two bills under Ex.A-5 and A-6 were relating to the surgery done on the petitioner for removal of implants and screws. Learned Tribunal made a finding that the bills under Ex.A-5 cannot be considered as the petitioner did not examine any person to prove the same. It is very difficult to agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal. It is not the finding made by the Tribunal that the petitioner did not undergo second surgery for removal of implants. When the petitioner claimed medical expenditure of Rs.9,900/- under Ex.A-5, the Tribunal granted only Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses. So, when the petitioner produced medical bills in the form of medical expenditure under Exs.A-5 and A-6, without proper reasons, the Tribunal disallowed the same but granted a sum of Rs.20,000/-. So, the Tribunal could only award Rs.20,000/- at one hand and further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- on the ground that the petitioner must have purchased medicines for healing of his injury. In my considered view, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the medical expenditure as claimed by the petitioner both under Exs.A-5 and A-6. 23. Turning to the contention of petitioner that the Tribunal only awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, there is no dispute that the petitioner claimed Rs.25,000/-. The facts are such that under some heads the petitioner claimed lesser amount and under some heads he claimed higher amounts. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner received grievous injury to his right thigh i.e., fracture. He underwent two surgical procedures. Rods and screws were fixed in his right thigh for a period of two years. On account of non-healing of the fracture or for whatever reason he was compelled to undergo second surgery in the year 2014 for removal of the rods. He underwent two surgical procedures. Rods and screws were fixed in his right thigh for a period of two years. On account of non-healing of the fracture or for whatever reason he was compelled to undergo second surgery in the year 2014 for removal of the rods. So, when the petitioner underwent two surgical procedures, awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, in my considered view, is not sufficient and not at all reasonable. 24. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances and looking into the fracture to his right thigh, this Court is of the considered view that it is just and reasonable to allow a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering instead of Rs.25,000/-. 25. Coming to the permanent disability, as rightly held by the Tribunal, there was no functional disability proved by the petitioner. However, looking into the fact that the petitioner has to undergo physiotherapy etc., to his right thigh, for better progression, Tribunal was inclined to grant a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the future medical expenditure. Though there was no functional disability but looking into the fact that the petitioner felt inconvenience in his right thigh and he has to go for physiotherapy etc., the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-. As there was no functional disability, absolutely, there is no likelihood of loss of future earnings. Hence, the contention of the appellant that the compensation under the head of permanent disability is to be enhanced deserves no merit. 26. Coming to the other heads of compensation, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment, which is quiet reasonable. Further, the learned Tribunal duly awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards extranourishment and transportation and further a sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities. 27. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, the compensation needs to be enhanced under the count of medical expenditure looking into Exs.A-5 and A-6. Further towards pain and suffering, the medical expenditure under Ex.A-5 is Rs.9,900/- and the medical expenditure under Ex.A-6 is Rs.26,700/-, which comes to Rs.36,600/-. The Tribunal already awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- i.e., Rs.20,000/- + Rs.5,000/- separately under the count of medical expenditure. Now the difference amount to be enhanced is Rs.11,600/-. The difference amount towards pain and suffering for two surgical interventions is Rs.25,000/-. The Tribunal already awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- i.e., Rs.20,000/- + Rs.5,000/- separately under the count of medical expenditure. Now the difference amount to be enhanced is Rs.11,600/-. The difference amount towards pain and suffering for two surgical interventions is Rs.25,000/-. So, the enhanced compensation, as above, is Rs.36,600/-. Hence, the compensation is liable to be interfered with by enhancing the same from Rs.1,01,000/- to Rs.1,37,600/-. The points are answered accordingly. 28. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,01,000/- to Rs.1,37,600/-. The respondents are directed to deposit the difference of the enhanced compensation amount within one month from this day with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of Petition till the date of deposit. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same in lump sum. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.