JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 14.07.2010 in M.V.O.P. No. 21 of 2008, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (for short “Tribunal”), where under the Tribunal as against the claim of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, awarded a sum of Rs.13,338/-. The appellant herein is no other than the claimant in M.V.O.P. No. 21 of 2008. 2. The parties to this MACMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the petitioner in M.V.O.P. No. 21 of 2008, in brief, is that on 28.07.2007 morning hours, the petitioner and his wife Balamma and another person engaged the first respondent’s Car bearing No. AP-37-U-8444 (“offending vehicle” for short) to go from Tanuku to Jangareddigudem. During the course of journey they reached Chebrolu Center. At that time first respondent/driver drove the said Car with high speed, negligently without following rules and suddenly diverted the Car towards Railway Gate side and dashed against Skoda Car bearing No. AP-9-DH-144, as a result, both the Cars met with damage. The petitioner, his wife and another sustained injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to Government Headquarters Hospital, Eluru and they got treatment. The Station House Officer, Chebrolu, registered a case in Crime No. 129 of 2007 for the offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code and investigated into. The first respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. AP-37-U-8444. The second respondent is owner of the said Car. It was insured with the third respondent. Hence, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 4. Before the Tribunal respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte. 5. The third respondent-insurance company got filed a counter denying the case of the petitioner and putting to the strict proof of age, income, manner of accident and expenditure incurred by him. According to FIR, driver of Skoda Car bearing No. AP-9-DH-144 was at fault. There was no rash and negligent act on the part of the first respondent in driving the offending vehicle. Hence, the third respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. The petition is also bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. The petitioner did not implead the driver, owner and insurer of the Skoda Car bearing No. AP-9-DH-144. There was no rash and negligent act on the part of the first respondent in driving the offending vehicle. Hence, the third respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. The petition is also bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. The petitioner did not implead the driver, owner and insurer of the Skoda Car bearing No. AP-9-DH-144. Hence, the petition is to be dismissed. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues: (1) Whether the accident occurred on 28.07.2007 was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing No. AP-37-U-8444 by the first respondent? (2) Whether the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the Skoda Car bearing No. AP-9-DH-144 by its driver as alleged in the written statement of third respondent? (3) Whether the petitioner is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged in para No. 6 of the written statement of third respondent? (4) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so for what amount and from which of the respondent? (5) To what relief? 7. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 and further he examined PW-2, the Doctor, who treated him. On behalf of the contesting third respondent, no witnesses were examined. However, Ex.B.1-the copy of insurance policy was marked with consent. Further Ex.X.1 was also marked through the examination of PW-2 which was the case-sheet of the petitioner. 8. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, answered the issues 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner and against third respondent and further issue No. 3 also answered as against the contention of the third respondent, but awarded compensation of Rs.13,338/- only. Felt aggrieved that the compensation was awarded is totally inadequate, the claimant filed the present appeal. 9. Now, in deciding the MACMA, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the compensation that was awarded in favour of the petitioner by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? Point: 10. Sri B.V. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would strenuously contend that the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- as regards grievous injury coupled with surgical intervention, but the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/-. Point: 10. Sri B.V. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would strenuously contend that the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- as regards grievous injury coupled with surgical intervention, but the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/-. Further with regard to the simply injury, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- and it needs to be enhanced at least to a sum of Rs.10,000/-. He would submit that the petitioner was handicapped for about four months in the hospital and the Tribunal did not consider the loss of earnings. Even the Tribunal did not consider awarding anything for extra nourishment for the treatment period. The compensation that was awarded to the petitioner was totally inadequate, as such, it needs to be enhanced. 11. Smt. Jayanthi, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, would contend that the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation of Rs.13,338/- and there is no need to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. 12. PW-1 is no other than the petitioner, who adverted to his case in accordance with the contents of the petition in his chief examination affidavit. Through his examination, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 were marked. Ex.A.1 was attested copy of FIR in Crime No. 129 of 2007 of Chebrolu Police Station. Ex.A.2 was attested copy of Charge sheet. Ex.A.3 was attested copy of wound certificate. Ex.A.4 was bunch of medical bills. Ex.A.5 was bunch of X-rays (12 in number). 13. During cross examination PW-1 denied the defence of the third respondent. He denied that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent act of the driver of Skoda Car bearing No. AP-9-DH-144 and that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 14. It is to be noted that the police after due investigation filed charge sheet. As seen from Ex.A.1 and A.2 the police completed the investigation and filed charge-sheet alleging rash and negligent act against the first respondent, who is the driver of offending vehicle. It is a case that the first respondent and second respondent remained ex-parte. The third respondent did not enter into witness box. Hence, the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 remained uncontested. Apart from this, when the police laid charge sheet alleging rash and negligent act against the first respondent, there is no need for the petitioner to join the driver and owner of Skoda Car bearing No. AP-9-DH-144. The third respondent did not enter into witness box. Hence, the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 remained uncontested. Apart from this, when the police laid charge sheet alleging rash and negligent act against the first respondent, there is no need for the petitioner to join the driver and owner of Skoda Car bearing No. AP-9-DH-144. It is a case where the claimant approached this Court saying that the compensation is inadequate. There are no cross objections on behalf of the third respondent so as to challenge the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent i.e., driver of the offending vehicle. 15. It is to be noted that the whole controversy in the appeal is to decide the quantum of compensation. The accident occurred was due to rash and negligent act of the first respondent. The second respondent was the owner of the vehicle and third respondent was the insurer said vehicle. As there was no dispute that Ex.B.1 policy covers the offending vehicle and the period of accident, the petitioner is entitled to compensation as against the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 16. As seen from the evidence of PW-2, he testified that on 27.07.2007 at 7-50 a.m., the petitioner was admitted in Orthopedic Ward with the history of pain and deformity left hip joint. On 28.07.2007 X-ray left hip was taken with MLC 607. It shows fracture extra capcil of neck of femur left. On 21.08.2007 patient was operated for the fracture and he was discharged on 04.09.2007 at 2-00 p.m. He issued Ex.A.3-wound certificate. Therefore, the evidence of PW-2 coupled with Ex.A.3, shows that the petitioner sustained fracture extra capcil of neck of femur left and it was operated. So, the injury received by the petitioner was a fracture which was surgically intervened. Apart from this, the petitioner also received simple injury according to Ex.A.3. There is no dispute about the nature of injuries received by the petitioner and further the surgical intervention. There was no dispute that when the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 28.07.2007 even according to Ex.X.1-case sheet, he was operated on 21.08.2007. Further according to Ex.X.1 from the date of discharge on 04.09.2007, the petitioner was advised to have a bed rest for a period of three months. There was no dispute that when the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 28.07.2007 even according to Ex.X.1-case sheet, he was operated on 21.08.2007. Further according to Ex.X.1 from the date of discharge on 04.09.2007, the petitioner was advised to have a bed rest for a period of three months. Therefore, the compensation with respect to the grievous injury was to be awarded looking into pain and suffering prior to the surgery and after the surgery. If those things are considered, absolutely, a sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is totally unreasonable. In my considered view, the Tribunal committed an error in just awarding Rs.10,000/- towards the grievous injury received by the petitioner which was treated with a surgical intervention, for which the petitioner was handicapped for a period of four months. 17. Having regard to the nature of injury which was treated with surgical intervention and taking into consideration the petitioner sustained with the said injury in the year 2007, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is just and reasonable under the head of grievous injury. Further, it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.2,000/- towards simple injury received by the petitioner. There is no denial of fact that according to the evidence available on record, the petitioner was handicapped with the injury for a period of four months. Therefore, during the period of four months, there was loss of earnings admittedly. The petitioner claimed that he used to earn a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. However, considering the period of accident, I am of the considered view that it is just and reasonable to consider the income of the petitioner on reasonable basis as Rs.4,000/- per month, as such, as the petitioner was handicapped for a period of four months, it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.16,000/- towards loss of earnings. Apart from this, the Tribunal did not consider to award any amount towards extra nourishment. Considering the same, it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. With regard to the medical expenditure claimed by the petitioner, the Tribunal rightly looked into Ex.A.4-medical bills which only reveals the medical expenditure of Rs.838/-. It appears that the petitioner availed the benefits under Aroghyasri, etc., as such the Tribunal rightly looked into Rs.838/- which was incurred by the petitioner. With regard to the medical expenditure claimed by the petitioner, the Tribunal rightly looked into Ex.A.4-medical bills which only reveals the medical expenditure of Rs.838/-. It appears that the petitioner availed the benefits under Aroghyasri, etc., as such the Tribunal rightly looked into Rs.838/- which was incurred by the petitioner. The Tribunal awarded a reasonable sum of Rs.500/- towards transport. 18. Having regard to the above, the compensation is liable to be modified as follows: (1) A sum of Rs.30,000/- as against Rs.10,000/- towards grievous injury. (2) A sum of Rs.10,000/- as against Rs.2,000/- towards simple injury. (3) A sum of Rs.16,000/- towards loss of earnings. (4) A sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. Therefore, the differential amount counts are Rs.20,000/- + Rs.8,000/- + Rs.16,000/- + Rs.5,000/- = Rs.49,000/- (Rupees forty nine thousand only). Hence, the compensation is liable to be enhanced accordingly. 19. In the result, the MACMA is allowed in part with costs enhancing the compensation from Rs.13,338/- to Rs.62,338/- by holding that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the difference of the compensation of Rs.49,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The third respondent is directed to deposit the differential amount within one month from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the differential amount. 20. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.