JUDGMENT A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - Challenge in this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the Award, dated 31.03.2016, in M.V.O.P. No.388 of 2013 on the file of V Additional District Judge-cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry (for short, 'the Tribunal') where under the Tribunal, as against the claim of the petitioner/appellant to award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation towards the injuries received by her in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 08.03.2012, awarded a sum of Rs. 28,472/- as compensation. 2. Felt aggrieved that the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable and it is meager, the petitioner filed the present Appeal. 3. The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the petitioner/appellant, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim, before the Tribunal, is that the petitioner was working as a coolie as on the date of accident. On 08.03.2012, she was returning home from Kotikesavaram by walk, at about 06:00 p.m, when she reached near to the house of one Parisetti Rambabu, the first respondent, driver-cum-owner of Auto bearing registration No.AP 05 V 6412 (for short, 'the Auto'), drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed and dashed against the petitioner resulting which the petitioner sustained fatal injury to her left leg, chest and other injuries all over her body. Second respondent is the insurer of the Auto. The petitioner was hale and healthy and was living as coolie at the time of accident. She was earning Rs. 3,500/- p.m. by doing coolie works. She was operated at Sai Hospital, Rajahmundry and spent a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards medical expenditure and further towards transportation to the Hospital. She suffered mental agony and pain and unable to attend her work. Hence, the Petition to award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- compensation. 5. First respondent remained ex parte. 6. The second respondent is the insurer of the Auto, who contested the claim by filing a counter. The contention of the second respondent/insurer, in brief, is that the claim of the petitioner on all counts is out of proportion. Compensation claimed is abnormally excessive and exaggerated. First respondent had no valid driving license. The Auto was not insured with the second respondent. The contention of the second respondent/insurer, in brief, is that the claim of the petitioner on all counts is out of proportion. Compensation claimed is abnormally excessive and exaggerated. First respondent had no valid driving license. The Auto was not insured with the second respondent. Petitioner has to prove all the allegations as set out in the Petition. She has to prove the injuries received by her and their impact. Hence, the Petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. The Tribunal, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, settled the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Crime vehicle i.e. auto bearing No.AP 05 V 6412 by the 1st respondent? (2) Whether the 1st respondent driver of the crime vehicle has possessed valid and effective driving license by the time of accident? (3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation amount if so to what extent and from whom? (4) To what relief? 8. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner got herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. She further examined the Doctor, who treated her, as PW.2. No evidence was let in on behalf of the contesting second respondent. However, Ex.B-1 accident intimation and Ex.B-2 insurance policy were marked. 9. The Tribunal, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, gave findings that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent act of the first respondent in driving the Auto and that the petitioner received injuries in the aforesaid accident. The Tribunal made further findings that the petitioner was able to prove the medical expenditure to a tune of Rs. 8,472/- and that the compensation of Rs.20,000/- is just and reasonable towards the injuries received by her as such totally awarded a sum of Rs. 28,472/- towards compensation with subsequent interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and directed both the respondents to deposit the aforesaid amount within one month from the date of Award and on such deposit, the petitioner is directed to withdraw the entire compensation. 10. As against the aforesaid Award, the petitioner filed the present Appeal contending that the compensation awarded is not just and reasonable as such it is liable to be enhanced. 11. 10. As against the aforesaid Award, the petitioner filed the present Appeal contending that the compensation awarded is not just and reasonable as such it is liable to be enhanced. 11. Insofar as the present Appeal is concerned, the respondents 1 and 2 herein are no other than driver-cum-owner of the Auto and its Insurer. In spite of service of notice on them, they did not choose to contest the Appeal. 12. Now in deciding the present Appeal, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: (1) Whether the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent act of the first respondent, driver-cum-owner of the Auto, and in the aforesaid accident the petitioner received any injuries? (2) Whether the Award, dated 31.03.2016, in M.V.O.P. No.388 of 2013 on the file of V Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? POINT Nos.1 & 2: 13. Sri Chandrasekhar Ilapakurti, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, would strenuously contend that the petitioner adduced cogent evidence to prove that due to the rash and negligent driving by the first respondent, owner-cum-driver of the Auto, she received multiple fractures and she was subjected to surgical procedure. He would submit that the petitioner sustained multiple rib fractures of 4, 5, 6 and 7 ribs of left chest and further fracture of Tibia and Fibula. She was treated as inpatient for a considerable period of time and she was subjected to complicated surgical procedures and at the time of accident the petitioner was aged about 50 years. Though the petitioner was given treatment under Aarogyasree scheme but insofar as the medical expenditure under Ex.A-5 is concerned, the Tribunal made a finding that the medical expenditure under Ex.A-5 was not covered under Aarogyasree scheme. He would submit that the finding made by the Tribunal denying to provide appropriate compensation, amount towards extra nourishment, transportation and loss of earnings during the period of treatment was not at all tenable. The petitioner was not supposed to file any documents towards the extra nourishment. On account of the fatal injuries received, she is supposed to take appropriate diet and there is no denial of the fact that she was roaming around the hospital and further she was bedridden consequent upon the treatment for a considerable period of time. The petitioner was not supposed to file any documents towards the extra nourishment. On account of the fatal injuries received, she is supposed to take appropriate diet and there is no denial of the fact that she was roaming around the hospital and further she was bedridden consequent upon the treatment for a considerable period of time. The Tribunal, without proper reason, declined to grant any compensation under these heads. When the petitioner received 5 fractures, act of the Tribunal in awarding a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering is un-just and unreasonable. With the above submission, he would canvass a contention that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is nothing but meager and as such it is to be enhanced considerably looking into the evidence on record. 14. As pointed out, neither of the respondents contested the claim before this Court. 15. Firstly, this Court would like to deal with as to whether the evidence on record warrants this Court to support the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent in which the petitioner received injuries. 16. As seen from the evidence of PW.1 she narrated the events in her chief-examination affidavit in tune with her pleadings. Through her examination Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. Ex.A-1 is the attested copy of FIR in Crime No.31 of 2012 of Korukonds P.S. Ex.A-2 is the attested copy of wound certificate. Ex.A-3 is the attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A-4 is the discharge summary issued by Sai Hospital, Rajahmundry. Ex.A-5 is the bunch of medical bills worth Rs.8,472/-. Ex.A-6 is the bunch of transportation bills during her visits to Hospital and Ex.A-7 is the bunch of x-rays (10) pertaining to the petitioner. 17. In support of her case, she examined PW.2, the Medical Officer, who gave treatment to her and according to him, he treated PW.1 under Aarogyasree scheme. There is no dispute that throughout the cross-examination of PW.1 and PW.2 with regard to the nature of injuries received by her. As seen from Ex.A-1, basing on the information the Police registered the FIR, investigated the same and filed charge sheet under Ex.A-3. It is a case where the first respondent - driver-cum-owner of the Auto remained ex parte and the second respondent - insurer of the Auto did not adduce any evidence. As seen from Ex.A-1, basing on the information the Police registered the FIR, investigated the same and filed charge sheet under Ex.A-3. It is a case where the first respondent - driver-cum-owner of the Auto remained ex parte and the second respondent - insurer of the Auto did not adduce any evidence. So, the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A-1 and A-3 goes to prove that the Police filed charge sheet alleging rashness and negligence against first respondent in driving the Auto and causing injuries to PW.1. As seen from Ex.A-2, wound certificate coupled with the evidence of PW.2 -Medical Officer, the petitioner received fractures to left leg upper 1/3rd tibia and fibula, measuring 10 x 4 x 2 CMs below the knee. Apart from such fractures to tibia and fibula, below the knee of left leg, she also received rib fractures to 4, 5, 6 and 7 on the left chest. The petitioner received 4 fractures to her ribs. Evidence of PW.2 coupled with Ex.A-4 - discharge summary shows that PW.1 was treated with surgical intervention. So, PW.1 received grievous injuries on account of the act of the first respondent. So the petitioner categorically proved the fact that she received 5 fracture injuries in the accident due to the rash and negligent act of the first respondent. There is no dispute that Ex.B-2 policy was in force at the time of accident covering the Auto. The contesting second respondent before the Tribunal miserably failed to prove that the first respondent did not possess a valid driving license. So, the Tribunal, in my considered view, rightly held that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent in driving the Auto, which caused grievous injuries to the petitioner. Hence, on account of the above, first respondent being driver-cum-owner of the Auto and the second respondent - insurer of the said Auto are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 18. Now, this Court has to consider as to the quantum of compensation. Though the petitioner claimed medical expenditure to a tune of Rs. 30,000/- but there was a finding of fact that the petitioner only incurred a sum of Rs. 8,472/- towards medical expenditure under Ex.A-5 bills and rest of the treatment was covered under Aarogyasree. Even according to the evidence of PW.2, the amount of Rs. Though the petitioner claimed medical expenditure to a tune of Rs. 30,000/- but there was a finding of fact that the petitioner only incurred a sum of Rs. 8,472/- towards medical expenditure under Ex.A-5 bills and rest of the treatment was covered under Aarogyasree. Even according to the evidence of PW.2, the amount of Rs. 8,472/- which the petitioner incurred from 26.03.2012 to 08.12.2013 was not covered under Aarogyasree scheme. So, the Tribunal rightly considered the medical expenditure to a tune of Rs. 8,472/-. 19. Coming to the quantum of compensation under the head of pain and suffering and mental agony, petitioner incurred 5 fractures i.e., 4 fractures to ribs and one to tibia and fibula below the left knee. The Tribunal considered to grant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- alone. It is to be noted that the petitioner received grievous injuries 5 in number. One is a fracture on the left leg i.e., upper 1/3rd tibia and fibula below the left knee which was surgically treated and other four rib fractures of 4, 5, 6 and 7 to left chest. So, she received multiple rib fractures 4 in number. Considering the same, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- granted by the Tribunal, as rightly contended on behalf of the appellant, is nothing but meager un-suited to the injuries. In my considered view, the Tribunal without application of mind casually awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards 5 fractures sustained by the petitioner. 20. Having regard to the pain and suffering and the mental agony, which she felt on account of 5 fractures, this Court is of the considered view that at least a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to each fracture is just and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. 21. Having regard to the above, the appropriate compensation towards pain and suffering and mental agony for the grievous injuries received by the petitioner should be Rs. 75,000/- (for 5 injuries) instead of Rs. 20,000/-. 22. It is to be noted that according to the evidence available on record, the date of accident was on 08.03.2012. Even according to the evidence of PW.2, patient was admitted in the hospital on 08.03.2012. She was operated by him on 13.03.2012 and the bone was fixed using the rings and she was discharged on 17.03.2012. So, the patient was in the hospital for about 10 days. Even according to the evidence of PW.2, patient was admitted in the hospital on 08.03.2012. She was operated by him on 13.03.2012 and the bone was fixed using the rings and she was discharged on 17.03.2012. So, the patient was in the hospital for about 10 days. There was no dispute that the petitioner was a coolie. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, it was reasonable to expect that at least for a period of one month, she was not able to perform her occupation. Considering the same, the Tribunal ought to have considered that at least for a period of month, the petitioner lost her earnings. According to the case of the petitioner, she was earning a sum of Rs. 3,500/- p.m. Hence, it is reasonable to consider the loss of earnings of the petitioner for a period of one month to Rs. 3,500/-. 23. There was no dispute that though the petitioner claimed transportation but the Tribunal did not consider to grant any amount towards transportation. The Award of the Tribunal did not disclose that whether the Tribunal considered granting any sum towards transportation to the hospital. As evident from the evidence available on record, even according to the evidence of PW.2, the petitioner was moving around the hospital for a considerable period of time. Having regard to the above, it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation to the hospital. Firstly, the petitioner was referred to hospital immediately after the accident and later she was moved out of the hospital only after her discharge. Thereafter also she was moving around the hospitals on the ground that the petitioner did not file any proof to show the expenditure under extra nourishment. Hence, it is quite reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation. 24. The Tribunal did not grant any amount under the head of extra nourishment. Extra nourishment means, one has to take special diet so as to expedite the process of healing of the injuries. It is not inclusive of any medical expenditure. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- at least towards extra nourishment. The petitioner did not prove any permanent disability on account of the injuries received as such the Tribunal rightly declined to grant any amount towards her permanent disability. 25. It is not inclusive of any medical expenditure. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- at least towards extra nourishment. The petitioner did not prove any permanent disability on account of the injuries received as such the Tribunal rightly declined to grant any amount towards her permanent disability. 25. In the light of the above, the compensation which the petitioner is entitled to reasonably is as follows: S.No. Name of the Head Compensation awarded 1. Medical Expenditure Rs. 8.472/- 2. Pain and suffering physical as well as mental for the 5 grievous injuries Rs. 75,000/- 3. Loss of earnings Rs. 3,500/- 4. Transportation to the Hospital Rs. 10,000/- 5. Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000 TOTAL Rs. 1,01,972/- 26. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a reasonable compensation of Rs. 1,01,972/-. Hence, the Award of the Tribunal insofar as awarding a sum of Rs. 28,472/- needs to be interfered accordingly by modifying the Award. 27. In the result, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 28,472/- to Rs. 1,01,972/- by holding that the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation by directing them to deposit the difference of the enhanced compensation of Rs. 73,500/- with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization within one month from the date of this Judgment and on such deposit the petitioner is entitled to withdraw difference of the enhanced compensation amount with up to date interest with proportionate costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.