JUDGMENT : VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. The appellant is claimant in M.V.O.P. No. 367 of 2006 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl. District Judge, Kadapa and the respondents are respondents in the said case. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.06.2004. 4. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows: On 14.06.2004 the claimant was travelling in an lorry bearing registration No. AP 04U 2110 towards Chunnur from Duvur and when the lorry reached near Chennur bridge, a lorry bearing registration No. AP 16V 4929 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came in opposite direction and dashed the lorry, due to which, the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending lorry and hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 5. The 1st respondent was set ex-parte. 6. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a written statement by denying the manner of accident. It is pleaded that the accident is of head on collision and therefore, both the drivers of the auto and the lorry are at equal fault and if any compensation is awarded, the same shall be apportioned equally and not against the owner of the lorry alone. 7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the claimant sustained injuries on 14.06.2004 at 4.00 p.m. near Chennur Bridge, Anjaneyapuram village on Kadapa-Kurnool National Highway due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 16V 4929 of the 1st respondent being insured with the 2nd respondent? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 8. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the claimant, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. 2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 8. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the claimant, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B.1 was got marked. 9. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.67,500/- towards compensation to the claimant. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the claimant preferred the appeal for enhancement of compensation. 10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties. 11. The grounds urged by the appellant/claimant are that the Tribunal failed to consider that the claimant sustained one grievous injury and eight simple injuries and ought to have awarded compensation on these two heads. 12. Now, the points for determination are: (1) Whether the claimant is entitled enhancement of compensation as prayed for? (2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference? 13. POINT Nos. 1 and 2: On appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry and because of the accident, the claimant sustained multiple injuries. The material on record and Ex.A.1-certified copy of first information report and Ex.A.3-certified copy of charge sheet also proves that the accident occurred due to sole negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry. The Tribunal gave the same finding. No appeal was filed by the respondents against the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 14. The claimant, who is a student, is aged about 16 years at the time of accident. Because of sudden accident, he suffered severe mental agony as he sustained one grievous injury and eight simple injuries in the accident and his future was damaged. The claimant was admitted in NIMS, Hyderabad as an inpatient and got treatment for some time. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the claimant is not entitled any compensation under the head of disability. The claimant was admitted in NIMS, Hyderabad as an inpatient and got treatment for some time. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the claimant is not entitled any compensation under the head of disability. This Court also does not find any infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. 15. Coming to the compensation granted by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards treatment and surgery, Rs.7,500/- was awarded towards attendant charges and Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards extra nourishment. This Court feels that there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal on these three heads. 16. As seen from Ex.A.2-wound certificate and also the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, it is clear that the claimant sustained one fracture and eight simple injuries. PW-2-Doctor also certified the same in Ex.A.2-wound certificate. Therefore, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the claimant towards grievous injury, in addition to Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards treatment and surgery. 17. The case of the claimant is that he was admitted in NIMS, Hyderabad, as an inpatient on 18.06.2004 and discharged on 16.07.2004 and he was treated in the hospital for a period of 28 days. The learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony. This Court feels that the said amount is very low. Because of sudden accident, the petitioner suffered severe mental agony and his studies were also affected. Therefore, the said amount is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. 18. With regard to the simple injuries sustained by the claimant, no compensation was awarded by the Tribunal. As seen from Ex.A.2-wound certificate, the petitioner sustained eight simple injuries. Therefore, an amount of Rs.16,000/- towards eight simple injuries @ Rs.2,000/- for each simple injury. 19. In total, the claimant is entitled an amount of Rs.1,08,500/- towards compensation. 20. It is not in dispute by the 2nd respondent/Insurance company that the offending lorry was insured with the Insurance company and the policy was also in force and the driver of the offending lorry was also having valid driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation. 21. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.67,500/- to Rs.1,08,500/-. Therefore, both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation. 21. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.67,500/- to Rs.1,08,500/-. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.41,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. before the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of deposit as awarded by the Tribunal, within two months from the date of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw enhanced compensation of Rs.41,000/- along with interest. No order as to costs. 22. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed.