JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 17.11.2015 in M.V.O.P. No. 100 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Kadapa (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with a claim of compensation for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- made by the claimant with reference to the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 22.04.2008, awarded a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- towards the compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit with proportionate costs. 2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicle accident claim, is that: (i) The claimant along with his friend Mohan Reddy, on 22.04.2008 were proceeding from Gandhi Temple to Vempalle, after completion of contract work at Gandi, on a motor cycle bearing No. AP 04 F 7853. Mohan Reddy was the rider of the motor cycle and the claimant Ganduluru Surendra Reddy, was the pillion rider. When they reached near Veerannagattupalli turning on Gandi-Vempalli road, the rider of the motor cycle was proceeding on the left side of the road. Suddenly, a tractor bearing No. AP 04 K T/R 6348 (“offending vehicle” for short) came in opposite direction i.e. from Vempalle side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant, as a result, claimant and his friend Mohan Reddy fell down from the motor cycle and sustained injuries. They were shifted to Government Hospital, Vempalle. Mohan Reddy lodged complaint to the police. The motor cycle of the claimant was also damaged. The claimant sustained following injuries: (1) Tender oedematuous diffused left middle leg. (2) Tender oledematous diffused left middle thigh. (3) Tender oedematous diffused right middle leg. (4) Tender oedematous diffused left fore arm. Boney parts seen outside. (5) Lacerated injury ½ x ½ x ½ on the left hip laterally. (6) Lacerated injury of ½ x ½ x ½ over left middle lip. (7) Left incisor (teeth) upper part broken. X-ray shows the following: (1) Left acetabular fracture. (2) Left femur fracture. (3) Left tibia fracture. (4) Fracture medial malleous. Boney parts seen outside. (5) Lacerated injury ½ x ½ x ½ on the left hip laterally. (6) Lacerated injury of ½ x ½ x ½ over left middle lip. (7) Left incisor (teeth) upper part broken. X-ray shows the following: (1) Left acetabular fracture. (2) Left femur fracture. (3) Left tibia fracture. (4) Fracture medial malleous. (5) Left knee tear of medial meniscocus. (6) Right tibia and fibula fracture. (7) Right volar barstones fracture with dislocation. (8) Left ulna and head of radius, wrist fracture. (9) Fracture L12 vertebra (back bone). (ii) Claimant was shifted to Care Hospital, Hyderabad, Doctors performed several operations to the left of claimant. Matalic rods were inserted inside thigh bone. Five metallic rods were inserted to the hands of claimant after several operations. Still the wounds are not healed. Claimant incurred medical expenses of Rs.4,50,000/- and in spite of several operations, he got limping and unable to sit and stand, cannot perform any physical work, unfit to attend any work under contractor. The doctors at Care Hospital, advised the claimant to undergo further surgery as the fracture parts were not healed properly, resulting severe pain to the claimant and he sustained permanent disability to the extent of 50%. (iii) The petitioner/claimant spent huge money towards transportation charges to Hyderabad and he is not in a position to attend work as a site supervisor and now walking with the help of stick. Claimant prior to the accident was working as supervisor under contractor Malleswarar Reddy at Gandi Temple and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing the same for the maintenance of his family. The accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor engaged by respondent No. 1, which was insured with respondent No. 2. Hence, both the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 4........... (i) Respondent No. 1/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. Respondent No. 2-insurer of the tractor appeared before the Court and filed written statement contending in substance that rider of the motor cycle is the relative of the claimant. The road at the scene of offence is as vide as 50 feet. Had the driver of the motor cycle exercised a little bit of caution, he would have avoided the accident. The road at the scene of offence is as vide as 50 feet. Had the driver of the motor cycle exercised a little bit of caution, he would have avoided the accident. Not only the driver of the tractor, even the driver of the motor cycle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. There was a contributory negligence on the part of the two vehicles. The rider of the motor cycle was not having valid driving license at the time of accident and the motor cycle was not insured. As the accident was occurred due to the negligent tendency of the rider of the motor cycle, the respondent No. 2 is not responsible for the injuries sustained by the claimant. (ii) The claimant was put to strict proof of the nature of the injuries sustained by him, alleged medical expenses, alleged loss of earnings and also the alleged permanent disability. The claimant was also put to strict proof of his occupation and his income. (iii) The tractor was driven by a person not holding any driving license at all. Therefore, respondent No. 1 is alone is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The claim is excessive. Hence, the claim is to be dismissed. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issue for trial: (1) Whether the petitioner received injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor bearing No. AP TJR 6348 on 22.04.2008? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? 6. During the course of trial, before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs. 1 to 4 were examined. Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the contesting respondent No. 2, RWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1, Exs.X1 to X3 were marked. 7. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, answered the issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the contesting respondent No. 2, RWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1, Exs.X1 to X3 were marked. 7. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, answered the issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. Further the Tribunal while dealing with whether the driver of the tractor did not possess license to drive the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident, on overall consideration of the evidence on record, gave finding that the driving license produced by the driver to the investigating officer is found to be fake, as such, respondent No. 2 shall pay the compensation that may be awarded to the claimant and to recover the same from the respondent No. 1. Further the Tribunal arrived at the compensation payable by the respondents as that of Rs.3,20,000/- and accordingly passed the award with a direction that respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay the compensation amount along with interest, proportionate costs within one month from the date of the judgment and that respondent No. 2 shall satisfy the award at first instance and then proceed to recover the same from the respondent No. 1, in accordance with law treating this award as a decree in their favour and recover the amount interest as well as costs from respondent No. 1 i.e. pay and recovery. 8. Claimant felt aggrieved that the compensation so awarded is not just and reasonable, filed the present M.A.C.M.A. with a prayer to enhance the compensation. 9. As against the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the tractor and further findings that the respondent No. 1 that he has to primary responsibility to pay the compensation and further finding that respondent No. 2 shall pay the compensation and to recover the same from the respondent No. 1, there is no cross objection or cross appeal from respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Hence, the scope of the M.A.C.M.A. is to be confined as to whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation. 10. 1 and 2. Hence, the scope of the M.A.C.M.A. is to be confined as to whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation. 10. Under the circumstances, the simple question that falls for consideration is as follows: “Whether the award, dated 17.11.2015 in M.V.O.P. No. 100 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Kadapa, in awarding the compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- as against the original claim of Rs.8,00,000/- is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to enhance the compensation is to be made?” Point: 11. Sri L.T. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that the petitioner sustained as many as seven (7) fractures. The petitioner examined PWs.1 to 4 and exhibited wound certificate and discharge summary. Discharge the summary discloses the nature of the treatment. On the ground that the Doctor who treated the injured was not examined, the Tribunal simply awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- to each fracture. Even the Tribunal itself held that the petitioner is entitled to more compensation and in absence of examination of the doctor, it is not inclined to award. Aforesaid findings need interference. The discharge summary explains the nature of the treatment and the period of treatment would be born out from the record. The Tribunal as against the salary certificate, which shows the monthly salary of the petitioner as Rs.10,000/- but without any reason, considered the monthly income as Rs.5,000/- and only awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earnings, instead of Rs.60,000/-. The Tribunal did not consider the medical expenditure. The Tribunal did not consider the disability. It only allowed Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses. When the receipt for transport to a sum of Rs.24,390/- Tribunal considered only Rs.20,000/- without any reason. Viewing from any angle, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lesser side which needs to be enhanced. 12. No arguments are advanced on behalf of the respondent No. 2-Insurance Company in spite of the opportunity given. 13. As seen from the evidence of PW-1, who was the claimant/injured, he got filed his chief examination affidavit putting forth the facts in tune with the pleadings. Through his examination, Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. Ex.A1 was the certified copy of F.I.R. in crime No. 31 of 2008 of Vempalli police station. Ex.A2 was the certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A3 was the certified copy of wound certificate. Through his examination, Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. Ex.A1 was the certified copy of F.I.R. in crime No. 31 of 2008 of Vempalli police station. Ex.A2 was the certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A3 was the certified copy of wound certificate. Ex.A4 was the discharge summary. Ex.A5 was the disability certificate issued by RIMS, Kadapa. EX.A6 was the Ambulance bills for Rs.24,390/-. Ex.A7 was the salary certificate issued by N.M. Constructions. 14. The claimant examined PW-2- who is proprietor of N.M. Constructions Company, in which he was working at the time of accident and according to PW-2, Ex.A7 was the salary certificate of PW-1. 15. Further the claimant examined PW-3, to speak about the supply of ambulance to PW-1 on payment of Rs.24,390/-. 16. Further the claimant examined PW-4 Dr. J. Nagesh, to prove the disability sustained by him. 17. Now, I would like to deal with the heads of compensation granted by the Tribunal to ascertain whether it needs any interference. 18. As seen from the evidence of PW-1, coupled with his evidence, the injuries received is that he sustained the following injuries in the accident: (1) Tender oedematuous diffused left middle leg. (2) Tender oedematous diffused left middle thigh. (3) Tender oedematous diffused right middle leg. (4) Tender oedematous diffused left forearm. Boney parts seen outside. (5) Lacerated injury ½ x ½ x ½ on the left hip laterally. (6) Lacerated injury of ½ x ½ x ½ over left middle lip. (7) Left incisor (teeth) upper part broken. Further according to him, the X-ray shows the following fractures: (1) Left acetabular fracture. (2) Left femur fracture. (3) Left tibia fracture. (4) Fracture medial malleous. (5) Left knee tear of medial meniscocus. (6) Right tibia and fibula fracture. (7) Right volur bar stones fracture with dislocation. (8) Left ulna and head of radius, wrist fracture. (9) Fracture L12 vertebra (back bone). 19. So, according to him, he sustained seven (7) fractures. He took treatment in Care Hospital, Hyderabad. Doctors performed several operations to his leg, by implanting metallic rods inside the thigh bone and to the hands also, in total five metallic rods were inserted after several operations. Wounds are not healed. Ex.A3-is the wound certificate and Ex.A4-is the discharge summary. 20. As seen from Ex.A3, wound certificate and Ex.A4, discharge summary, the fractures are as follows: (1) Left Acebular fracture un-displaced. (2) Sub-Trochanteric fracture commuted left femur. Wounds are not healed. Ex.A3-is the wound certificate and Ex.A4-is the discharge summary. 20. As seen from Ex.A3, wound certificate and Ex.A4, discharge summary, the fractures are as follows: (1) Left Acebular fracture un-displaced. (2) Sub-Trochanteric fracture commuted left femur. (3) Fracture tibia left Medial Malleolus (undisplaced). (4) Medial Meniscol tear ACL and MCL tear left knee. (5) Right lower limb, fracture both bones leg, commuted. (6) Right volar barstons with dislocation of wrist. (7) Left ulna M/3 fracgure head of radius. (8) Fracture of D12 vertebra with minimal card compression with mild monoparessis of left lower limb. 21. The discharge summary runs that he took treatment as inpatient for about 35 days in Care Hospital. Apart from that, Ex.A4 discloses that he underwent surgeries. It is to be noted that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- for each grievous injury, there by Rs.1,75,000/-. Towards pain and suffering and for lacerated injury of left knee, awarded Rs.10,000/-. It is to be noted that, the seven (7) fracture injuries received by the claimant were treated with surgical intervention. The Tribunal found that, though the claimant is entitled to higher compensation, but in the absence of examining the doctor, it is not in a position to assess the gravity of each injury. It is to be noted that at one hand looking into Ex.A4, the Tribunal made finding that the claimant took treatment for 35 days at Care Hospital and underwent several operations. Though unfortunately the claimant did not examine the doctors who attended surgical procedures, but Ex.A4, discharge summary was before the Tribunal explaining the nature of the treatment given to the claimant. At least the Tribunal by looking into Ex.A.4 the discharge summary, which reveals the surgical procedures as spoken to by PW-1 ought to have considered to award just and compensation for each fracture. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that a sum of Rs.25,000/- to each fracture is on lesser side. It is not a case of single fracture. Seven (7) fractures were there on the body of the PW-1, which were intervened with surgical procedures. Hence, when the fracture injuries were treated with surgical procedures, which is evident from Ex.A4, this Court is of the considered view, it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- to each fracture, thereby a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- as against the sum of Rs.1,75,000/-. Hence, when the fracture injuries were treated with surgical procedures, which is evident from Ex.A4, this Court is of the considered view, it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- to each fracture, thereby a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- as against the sum of Rs.1,75,000/-. 22. Turning to the medical expenses, rightly the Tribunal did not grant any amount, because the claimant was reimbursed the medical expenditure under the chief minister relief fund. 23. Turning to the loss of earnings. Claimant got examined PW-2, who testified that the claimant was working in their company for construction of choultry for the pilgrims. He worked from 01.05.2005 to 24.04.2008 and he paid Rs.10,000/- per month. He testified that Ex.A7 was issued by him. So, the Tribunal on the ground that there was no supporting evidence, like salary registers, considered the monthly income as Rs.5,000/- as against Rs.10,000/-. When PW-2 was examined to testify about the issuance of Ex.A7-salary certificate, absolutely the Tribunal erroneously declined to believe the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A7. Hence, it is quite reasonable to consider the petitioner’s income as Rs.10,000/- as such, the loss of earnings for six months should be Rs.60,000/- instead of Rs.30,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the during these six months, claimant loss his earnings and only awarded Rs.30,000/- which is not proper. Hence, the compensation under this head should be Rs.60,000/-. 24. Turning to so called disability, claimant got examined PW-4, who testified that the claimant has disability of 55%. Admittedly it is not a case where the so called disability certificate shows anything about the fact that whether the so called disability is of the whole body or limb. Admittedly, it is a case where there was no exact evidence to prove disability. However, it is not a case of loss of limb and further there was no loss of bone and there was no shortening of any limbs. However, the facts remained is that according to the evidence of PW-4, who examined the claimant, he assessed the disability due old fracture malunited left femur, old fracture left leg both bones with tibial tubercle with knee movements restrictions and painful instability of the joint left side. Admittedly, it is not a case of the permanent disability affecting the earnings. Symptomatic deformity as spoken by PW-4 is to be continued with PW-1. Admittedly, it is not a case of the permanent disability affecting the earnings. Symptomatic deformity as spoken by PW-4 is to be continued with PW-1. The Tribunal instead of awarding proper amount, at least lump-sum, awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenditure. One cannot deny that, admittedly PW-1 has some sort of disability in his knee movements and restrictions in the joint left side. Having regard to the above, apart from apart from future medical expenditure of Rs.50,000/- a lump-sum amount of Rs.50,000/- is to be awarded towards the deformity which the petitioner has on account of the injuries. Hence, the compensation under this ground should be Rs.50,000/- towards the deformity and Rs.50,000/- towards the future medical expenses. Though the injuries received by the petitioner was more, which were surgically intervened, the Tribunal considered the extra-nourishment only for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and it is appropriate to consider the extra-nourishment as Rs.20,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner claimed that under Ex.A6 that he incurred Rs.24,390/- towards transportation charges and examined PW-3, to prove the same. The Tribunal opined that the amount claimed by the claimant under Ex.A6, is on higher side, as such allowed the claim to a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Without any basis, the Tribunal held that the amount claimed under Ex.A6 is on higher side. When PW-1 spoke of the expenditure under Ex.A6, which has corroboration from the evidence of PW-3, PW-1 cannot be denied the whole amount under Ex.A6 i.e. Rs.24,390/-. Hence, the amount under the head of transportation charges should be Rs.24,390/- as against Rs.20,000/-. The Tribunal rightly considered an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards of loss of amenities. Except the above, this Court do not find any other ground to enhance the compensation as claimed by the claimant. 25. In the light of the above findings, now the compensation that is to be granted to the claimant is as follows: (1) Compensation for pain and suffering for seven (07) grievous fractures coupled with lacerated injury on the knee (enhanced amount of Rs. 1,05,000/-) Rs. 2,90,000/- (2) Medical expenses Nil (3) Loss of earnings (enhanced amount is Rs. 30,000/-) Rs. 60,000/- (4) Future medical expenses and deformity (enhanced amount is Rs. 50,000/-) Rs. 1,00,000/- (5) Transportation charges (enhanced amount is Rs. 4,390/-) Rs. 24,390/- (6) Extra-nourishment (enhanced amount is Rs. 10,000/-) Rs. 20,000/- (7) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs. 5,19,390/- 26. 2,90,000/- (2) Medical expenses Nil (3) Loss of earnings (enhanced amount is Rs. 30,000/-) Rs. 60,000/- (4) Future medical expenses and deformity (enhanced amount is Rs. 50,000/-) Rs. 1,00,000/- (5) Transportation charges (enhanced amount is Rs. 4,390/-) Rs. 24,390/- (6) Extra-nourishment (enhanced amount is Rs. 10,000/-) Rs. 20,000/- (7) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs. 5,19,390/- 26. Hence, the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation to a tune of Rs1,99,390/- in addition to the awarded amount of Rs.3,20,000/-. So, the total compensation payable to the claimant is Rs.5,19,390/- (Rs.3,20,000/- + Rs1,99,390/- = Rs.5,19,390/-). 27. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part with proportionate costs, enhancing the compensation from that of Rs.3,20,000/- to Rs. 5,19,390/- holding that respondent No. 1 primarily is liable to pay the enhanced compensation with interest and proportionate costs and directing the respondent No. 2 to satisfy the award and then proceed to recover the same from respondent No. 1, in accordance with law treating the award as decree in their favour and to recover the amount, interest, as well as costs from the respondent No. 1 i.e. pay and recovery. 28. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.