JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2011 in MVOP No.414 of 2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. For convenience's sake, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the MV OP. 3. The claimant has filed the petition under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, to grant compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries and disability sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09.11.2007. 4. On 09.11.2007, the claimant, along with M. Narasimha Murthy, G. Kumaraswamy and M. Sridhar, engaged a Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 35 U 4969 and boarded the same at Parvathipuram to go to Sompeta to attend the function. The said Tata Sumo would hereinafter be referred to as 'the offending vehicle'. When the offending vehicle reached near matchbox factory roadside, Parvathipuram, at about 9.30 a.m., the vehicle dashed a tree. The offending vehicle's driver, the first respondent, drove the same rashly and negligently at high speed even without hearing the cries and cautions of the claimant. The claimant sustained fractures on the left leg and endangerous injuries all over the body. Immediately, the claimant was taken to Karshaka Maharshi Hospital, Parvathipuram, where the doctors took an X-ray and found fractures on the shaft of the left femur, the super left femur and the neck of the femur of the left. Injury on the face and other vital parts of the body and Dr A. Hari Krishna, M.S.Ortho conducted surgery to his left femur, neck femur and super left femur, applied plaster of Paris and plates. The claimant underwent treatment from 09.11.2007 to 23.11.2007 as an in-patient. Later, he underwent treatment at MIMS Hospital, Nellimarla, where the doctor conducted second surgery for the left femur and underwent treatment from Dr Laxminarayana, M.S. Ortho, MIMS hospital, Nellimarla. Subsequently, he underwent physiotherapy at Area Hospital, Parvathipuram. 5. The first respondent filed a counter, and the second respondent adopted the same. On the counter, the first respondent contended that he is an experienced driver and there was no negligence. 6. The third respondent filed its counter, contending that claim is excessive and the petitioner is not entitled to the same. 7. 5. The first respondent filed a counter, and the second respondent adopted the same. On the counter, the first respondent contended that he is an experienced driver and there was no negligence. 6. The third respondent filed its counter, contending that claim is excessive and the petitioner is not entitled to the same. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed appropriate issues. During the trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined, marked Exs.A.1 to A.13 and Exs.X.1 to X.7. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined, Ex.B.1-copy of policy was marked by consent. 8. After considering the material evidence on record, the Tribunal held that due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver, the accident took place and awarded compensation of Rs.3,01,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 9. Heard both the learned counsel. 10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimant that the Tribunal erred in not granting amounts under the head of transportation and extra nourishment and granted a very meagre amount for the disability suffered by the claimant/appellant. 11. The learned counsel for the second respondent supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal. 12. Considering the rival contentions of both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material on record, the point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable or required any enhancement. 13. It is not in dispute that the second respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle, and the said vehicle was insured by the third respondent. The third respondent filed Ex.B.1-policy. The said policy was in force as of the date of the accident. 14. There is no dispute as to the occurrence of the accident in question and the respondents' liability to pay compensation. The third respondent/insurance company has not preferred any appeal or cross-objections questioning the Tribunal's findings about the liability for payment of compensation, and the said findings have become final. 15. The claimant sustained fracture injuries and simple injuries all over the body. The same was not disputed by the respondents. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.2-wound certificate shows that the petitioner sustained the following injuries : 1. Fracture mild shaft femur left 2. Fracture of super condylar femur left 3. 15. The claimant sustained fracture injuries and simple injuries all over the body. The same was not disputed by the respondents. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.2-wound certificate shows that the petitioner sustained the following injuries : 1. Fracture mild shaft femur left 2. Fracture of super condylar femur left 3. Fracture of the neck of the femur left 4. Abrasion over the face. 16. The doctor opined that injuries 1 to 3 are grievous and injury No.4 is simple in nature. P.W.2-Dr. A. Harikrishna testified that the claimant was admitted to Karshaka Maharshi Hospital, Parvathipuram, on 09.11.2007, and he had conducted surgery to the claimant on 10.11.2007 to the left femur and intramedullary nail and screw was done. 17. To prove the disability, the claimant got examined by PW.3 -Dr. K.V. Murali Mohan. His evidence shows that he was a Member of the District Medical Board. He examined the claimant on 11.04.2011 with reference to the wound certificate and latest x-rays. He testified that the latest x-rays show a left thigh old fracture left femur at three levels of post-traumatic sequel present and assessed the disability at 25%, which is partial and permanent. According to the doctor, the claimant cannot do his work as he did prior to the accident and cannot walk or climb without the help of a person or a stick. The left leg was shortened to the extent of 3 ½ inches. The evidence of PW.3 is supported by Ex.A.12-latest x-rays, two in number. Ex.A.13 is the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, which establishes that the claimant's left leg was shortened to 3 ½ inches. The evidence of PW.3 is supported by Ex.A.12-X-rays and Ex.P.13-disability certificate. 18. The claimant was also examined P.W.4-Dr.C.Laxminarayana, Orthopedic Surgeon, MIMS Hospital, to prove his treatment. According to his evidence, the claimant was admitted to MIMS Hospital on 01.04.2008 with an old segmental fracture shaft of the femur along with a fractured neck of the femur, which was operated on at Parvathipuram. The claimant went to MIMS hospital for inability to walk. P.W.4 stated that the old x-rays revealed that the screw was not in a position at the distal locking of the nail. On 04.04.2008, surgery was done at MIMS hospital, and old screws were removed, and fresh screws were applied and discharged on 16.04.2008. Ex.X.2 is the case sheet. The claimant went to MIMS hospital for inability to walk. P.W.4 stated that the old x-rays revealed that the screw was not in a position at the distal locking of the nail. On 04.04.2008, surgery was done at MIMS hospital, and old screws were removed, and fresh screws were applied and discharged on 16.04.2008. Ex.X.2 is the case sheet. The claimant was readmitted on 15.05.2008 for physiotherapy over the left knee joint and discharged on 28.05.2008. Ex.X.3 is the case sheet dated 15.05.2008. The claimant was admitted for the third time on 31.03.2009. PW.4 further stated that the petitioner also took outpatient treatment on different dates covered by Ex.X.5 to X.7. During the evidence, P.W.4 admitted that as per the prescriptions prescribed by him, the claimant purchased medicines. The said medical bills were marked under Ex.A5. 19. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering for three grievous injuries and Rs.2,000/- towards pain and suffering for one simple injury. After considering the material on record, this Court finds that the Tribunal awarded just compensation amount towards pain and suffering, and the said finding is confirmed. 20. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- compensation for mental agony by giving cogent reasons. The same is also not assailed by the respondents, and it is also confirmed. 21. To prove the medical expenses, the claimant relied on Ex.A.5-bunch of medical bills for Rs.1,34,130/- which he incurred. Based on medical bills, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,34,000/- towards medical expenses, and it is also not disputed by the respondents, and it is also supported by the documentary evidence; as such, this Court is also confirming the same. 22. Further, the Tribunal observed that the claimant lost his earnings for five months and awarded a notional amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earnings. As per the evidence of PW.1, the claimant is doing business in wholesale Agarbatti and is also running Sri Sankar General Stores. Though the claimant has not placed documentary evidence to show his earnings as claimed by him, this Court views that as the claimant happened to be a businessman, it is reasonable to assess his monthly earnings at Rs.5,000/-. As the Tribunal already awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- under the head loss of earnings, this Court inclined to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the same head. As the Tribunal already awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- under the head loss of earnings, this Court inclined to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the same head. The claimant is entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earnings. 23. The Tribunal has not awarded the amount towards attendant charges. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the treatment undergone by him, this Court is inclined to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges. 24. The Tribunal has not awarded the amount towards transportation charges. The evidence on record shows that the claimant got treatment in different hospitals and was forced to visit the hospital frequently for treatment; as such, this Court is inclined to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges. 25. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards extra nourishment. After considering the material on record, this Court inclined to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment. 26. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards partial and permanent disability. As already observed, the District Medical Board assessed the disability at 25%, which is a partial and permanent disability in nature. The evidence of P.W.3 shows that the claimant cannot walk or climb without the help of a person or a stick, and the left leg was shortened to 3 ½ inches. The opinion of the doctor shows that it affects the avocation and earning capacity of the claimant to some extent. As it is the case of the claimant that the disability affects his business, considering the inconvenience caused to the claimant, this Court is inclined to award an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards partial and permanent disability, in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. In all, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head partial and permanent disability. Apart from the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal to the petitioner, this Court views that the petitioner is entitled to the following additional amounts under various heads:- S.No. Head of the claim Amount Awarded by Tribunal Amount Awarded Difference Amount 1. Loss of earnings 15,000/- 25,000/- 10,000/- 2. Medical expenses 1,34,000/- 1,34,000/- - 3. Mental Agony 25,000/- 25,000/- - 4. Pain and suffering 77,000/- 77,000/- - 5. Attendant charges -- 10,000/- 10,000/- 6. Transportation expenses -- 10,000/- 10,000/- 7. Extra nourishment -- 10,000/- 10,000/- 8. Loss of earnings 15,000/- 25,000/- 10,000/- 2. Medical expenses 1,34,000/- 1,34,000/- - 3. Mental Agony 25,000/- 25,000/- - 4. Pain and suffering 77,000/- 77,000/- - 5. Attendant charges -- 10,000/- 10,000/- 6. Transportation expenses -- 10,000/- 10,000/- 7. Extra nourishment -- 10,000/- 10,000/- 8. Partial and permanent disability 50,000/- 1,00,000/- 50,000/- Total 3,01,000 3,91,000 90,000 27. In view of the reasons aforesaid, this Court views that the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.3,91,000/-. 28. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,01,000/- to an amount of Rs.3,91,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation within two months from the receipt of a copy of this order. The claimant is entitled to withdraw the compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs. 29. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.