JUDGMENT : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. I. Introduction:- 1. Dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded under the Order and Decree dated 19.11.2010 passed in O.P.No.314 of 2009 by the III Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ananthapur [for short referred as ‘the learned MACT’], the claimant filed the present appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the claimant and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed in the impugned order. II. Case of the claimant, in brief: 3. (i) Appellant/petitioner is milk vendor, aged about 43 years. On 04.03.2009, when he was travelling in an Auto Rickshaw bearing No.AP 02 X 1976 along with other passengers at Nallagundla at 2:00 p.m., the driver of the auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the auto turned turtle towards left side of the road and the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained fracture to her left shoulder and abrasions on her left hand. The other passengers also sustained injuries. Petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Ananthapur, where she took treatment for a week as inpatient. (ii) A case in Crime No.15 of 2009 for the offences u/s.337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver of the vehicle and subsequently, he was charge-sheeted. (iii) Claiming that the petitioner suffered bed-rest and spent huge expenditure for her treatment, suffered permanent disablement and unable to lift her hand and unable to attend the works. She has claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, before the learned MACT. 4. The 1 st Respondent/Owner-cum-Driver remained ex parte 5. The 2 nd Respondent/Insurance Company has disputed the claim denying the material assertions, negligence of the driver of the auto and attributing negligence to the Petitioner/Claimant. Further, disputing the nature of the injuries, medical expenditure incurred, disability pleaded, contending that the petition should be dismissed. 6. Learned MACT, after considering the evidence of the Petitioner examined as PW.1 and the Doctor, who treated the Petitioner examined as PW.2 and documents on record i.e., Exs.A1 to A5, First Information Report, Wound Certificate, Charge-Sheet, out-patient receipt and bunch of medical bills as Ex.A5, Ex.X1 case sheet, Ex.X2 X-Ray and X-Ray reports, partly allowed the claim awarding compensation of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) under various heads, Rs.12,500/- towards grievous injury, Rs.2000/- towards transportation, Rs.500/- towards other expenditure. 7. 7. Arguments in the appeal: Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned MACT, Ananthapur, ought to have considered the evidence of PW.2-Doctor and wound certificate/Ex.A2 and ought to have found the nature of injury as grievous one, ought to have awarded just and reasonable compensation. The petitioner claimed that she had incurred Rs.5,000/- towards the medical expenditure and same was affirmed on oath. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2/Insurance Company submitted that injuries are simple in nature and Ex.A2-Wound Certificate also disclosed the nature of injury as simple and the compensation awarded itself is just and reasonable and there are no grounds to interfere. 9. Perused the record and thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides. 10. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are that:- 1) Whether the compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the learned MACT under the impugned order and decree dated 19.11.2010 is just and reasonable and required any interference? If so, to which extent? 2) What is result of the appeal? Point No.1:- 11. Since the appeal is filed by the claimant, the objections as to negligence, liability, violation of conditions of the Insurance Policy etc., are all out of dispute. The only point that remains for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is just and adequate. What is just and reasonable compensation that can be awarded to the claimant? Precedential Guidance:- 12. With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr. 2025 AIAR (Civil) 1, Arising out of SLP (c) No. 10996 of 2018 on 11.12.2024, considered the scope and powers of the Tribunal in awarding just and compensation within the meaning of Act, after marshaling entire case law, more particularly with reference to the earlier observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors. 2020 (04) SCC 413 referred to various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:- 13. The evidence of doctor/PW.2, who treated the Petitioner is as follows:- “Chief Examination:- I am working as Asst. Professor of Orthopaedics in Govt. Medical College, Anantapur since August, 2000. I examined Ademma (P.w.1) on 5.3.09 who sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 4.3.09. She has following injuries:- 1. The evidence of doctor/PW.2, who treated the Petitioner is as follows:- “Chief Examination:- I am working as Asst. Professor of Orthopaedics in Govt. Medical College, Anantapur since August, 2000. I examined Ademma (P.w.1) on 5.3.09 who sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 4.3.09. She has following injuries:- 1. Fracture outer clavicle left shoulder. The fracture treated conservations and patient was discharged on 7.3.09. The injury is grievous in nature. Ex.X.1 is the case sheet of P.W.1. Ex.X.2 is X.ray and X.ray report. Ex.A4 is the outpatient card issued by the GGH., Anantapur. As per Ex.A4, X.1 and X.2 P.W.1 sustained grievous injury. Due to this injury P.W.1 cannot lift heavy weights. She cannot attend daily activities involving heavy weights. Cross Examination:- I have not issued the wound certificate Ex.A.2. In Ex.A.2 it is mentioned as simple injury. After 3 days the patient was discharged with an advice to attend Ortho O.P. after one week. It is not true to suggest that P.W.1 sustained only simple injury and therefore, she was discharged 3 days after her admission as her condition was alright and I am deposing falsehood to help P.W.1 to get compensation.” 14. The argument of learned counsel for the Respondent is that the injury is simple in nature and the same can be seen from the Ex.A2-Wound Certificate gets squarely answered upon perusal of the evidence of the doctor-PW.2, who treated the Petitioner, and who stated that the Petitioner suffered fracture disablement to left shoulder and treatment was given conservatively and he has specifically stated that injury was grievous in nature. Further, PW.2 admitted that Ex.A4, Exs.X1 and X2 are concluding that the nature of injury as grievous. Therefore, the nature of the injury is considered as grievous rightly by the learned MACT. However, while quantifying compensation, the learned MACT appeared to have ignored the same. 15. Upon considering the period of hospitalization, possibility of incurring medical expenditure and also best rest etc., for a reasonable period, loss of income for a period of one month, this Court finds that petitioner is entitled for compensation under following heads as follows: S. No. Heads Amount awarded 1. Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- 2. Medical Expenditure Rs.5,000/- 3. Attendant Charges Rs.5,000/- 4. Loss of income during the period of treatment etc… Rs.5,000/- 5. Transportation and special diet Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.50,000/- 16. Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- 2. Medical Expenditure Rs.5,000/- 3. Attendant Charges Rs.5,000/- 4. Loss of income during the period of treatment etc… Rs.5,000/- 5. Transportation and special diet Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.50,000/- 16. Since there is no proof of disability, awarding of compensation under the head of permanent disability does not arise. In view of the above reasons, the entitlement of appellant for compensation is found at Rs.50,000/- as against Rs.15,000/- arrived by learned MACT. Thus, the point No.1 is answered accordingly. Point No.2 :- 17. In view of the discussion made and conclusion arrived under Point No.1 as above, in the result, appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.15,000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.