JUDGMENT: 1. An injured claimant prayed for Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation in MVOP.No.1603 of 2010. By an award dated 12.03.2012, learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – Additional District Judge, Guntur granted a compensation of Rs.1,21,500/-. Impugning the same and seeking for enhancement of compensation, the injured preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The sole respondent before the claims tribunal as well as before this court is APSRTC. 2. Sri T.Sricharan, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, the learned standing counsel for respondent/ APSRTC submitted arguments. 3. The claimant is a Goldsmith aged about 55 years and was stated to be earning Rs.10,000/- per month. On 17.06.2010, he boarded APSRTC bus bearing registration No. AP 28 Z 533 belonging to Nellore Depot and the bus was plying from Nellore to Vemulawada. While the claimant and others were travelling in the bus, it was about 03.30 am the driver of the APSRTC bus by his rash or negligent driving dashed a lorry and as a result various persons travelling in the bus suffered injuries which include the claimant. He suffered injuries to his ribs, ear, eye, right leg and certain injuries all over the body. He was treated at MGM Hospital, Warangal and thereafter at Lalitha Super Specialty Hospital, Guntur. He was in-patient in two different hospitals. In the first instance, he was in hospital till 04.08.2010 and in the second instance in the second hospital, he was in-patient till 15.10.2010. He prayed before the claims tribunal, a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. APSRTC contended that it was a case of contributory or composite negligence and pleaded that without making the owner, driver and insurer of the lorry, the claim could not be maintained. Based on the rival pleadings, the learned claims tribunal settled the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP28Z 533? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so, from whom? 3. To what relief? 4. At the trial on behalf of the claimant, there was the evidence of PW.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A19 and Exs.X1. On behalf of the APSRTC, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. 5. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so, from whom? 3. To what relief? 4. At the trial on behalf of the claimant, there was the evidence of PW.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A19 and Exs.X1. On behalf of the APSRTC, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. 5. The subject matter accident was registered as a crime and FIR was issued as per Ex.A1 and the incident was investigated into and a charge sheet was laid as per Ex.A2. The learned claims tribunal recorded that the claim petitioner is a third party. He himself did not drive either of the vehicles and therefore, the question of contributory negligence does not arise. It was found that both the vehicles had a head on collision. Even if it were to be considered that there was composite negligence, the third party claimant was held entitled to sue either of the joint tortfeasors or both of them. In this regard, learned claims tribunal referred to Sombathina Ramu V. T.Srinivasulu, [ 2009 ACJ 187 ] and Gajananda v. Virendra Singh, [ 2010 ACJ 145 ]. Since the law permitted the third party to seek compensation from all or any of the wrong doers, the learned claims tribunal held that not impleading the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry, had no bearing. It considered the evidence and found that the evidence led by the claimant remained unimpeached and there was no evidence contrary to the facts deposed by the claimant and finally held that the driver of the offending APSRTC bus was guilty of rash or negligent driving which resulted in accident and resultant injuries to the claimant. In the present appeal, all these aspects remained undisputed. 6. With reference to the nature of the injuries the claimant suffered and the compensation to be awarded, the claims tribunal recorded that there was fracture of ribs and fracture of right femur but those injuries were treated conservatively without the requirement of conducting any surgeries on the claimant. It further found that the injuries did not reduce the earning capacity of the claimant and he was found able to attend his duties normally. Thus, it found there were no physical or functional disability acquired by the petitioner because of these injuries. It further found that the injuries did not reduce the earning capacity of the claimant and he was found able to attend his duties normally. Thus, it found there were no physical or functional disability acquired by the petitioner because of these injuries. It further recorded that a part of the treatment obtained by the claimant was covered by Aarogyasri scheme and therefore he was not entitled to any claim with reference to that. It considered the evidence of PW.2/ the doctor and Exs.A8 and A9 and held that Rs.36,500/- spent towards medical expenses as per Ex.A8 was not covered by Aarogyasri scheme and therefore towards medical expenses that amount was granted. In its opinion, the claimant was in-patient for two months. Therefore, towards pain and suffering, it granted Rs.85,000/-. Thus, total compensation of Rs.1,21,500/- alone was granted. The operative portion of the award reads as below: “ In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs. a. The petitioner is entitled for compensation to a tune of Rs.1,21,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty one thousand and five hundred only) b. Respondent is directed to deposit the said amount with interest at 6% p.a from the date of petition (15-12-2010) till realization, within 30 days from the date of award, c. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount by filing an application, d. Advocate fees is fixed at Rs.1,500/-" 7. In the present appeal, the said award is impugned stating that claims tribunal committed gross error in not awarding anything towards loss of earnings from the time of hospitalization till discharge and failed to grant additional expenses meant for diet and extra nourishment and failed to grant any amount towards attendant charges though the petitioner availed an attendant during his hospitalization period. It is further contended that while there were two spells of admission into hospitals the claims tribunal failed to consider the total length of time of hospitalization and failed to grant appropriate compensation. As against it, the learned standing counsel for APSRTC contended that the learned claims tribunal considered all the evidence and arrived at appropriate conclusions and no interference is required in this appeal. 8. The point that falls for consideration is: “ Whether the impugned award is erroneous as it failed to arrive at just compensation and therefore requires interference in this appeal?” 9. 8. The point that falls for consideration is: “ Whether the impugned award is erroneous as it failed to arrive at just compensation and therefore requires interference in this appeal?” 9. As per the version of claimant/ PW.1, he was a Goldsmith earning Rs.10,000/- per month. There was no evidence in opposition of it. A Goldsmith is a skilled artisan requiring his physical integrity to attend his work. There is on record Ex.A5/ discharge summary and Ex.A12 consisting of two discharge summaries issued by hospitals, Tenali. Ex.A13 consists of four outpatient cards issued by the same hospital indicating that post discharge from the hospital, the injured claimant was required to attend hospital as outpatient also for treatment. From the evidence on record, it is crystal clear that claimant sustained injuries on 17.06.2010 and was in hospitals and his treatment continued till 15.10.2010 and even a little beyond that. His final discharge from hospital was on 15.10.2010. Thus, the appellant/claimant was in and out of the hospitals for a period of four months during which time he was unable to attend his work and suffered loss of earnings. The impugned award shows that learned claims tribunal did not grant anything towards this actual loss of earnings. Since his monthly income is found to be Rs.10,000/- and since he could not attend his normal work for his earnings for a period of four months, it is recorded that he suffered loss of 40,000 towards loss of earnings and therefore, the same shall be granted. It remained undisputed that the appellant while in hospital for treatment to his fracture of ribs and right femur, he required to spend an additional amount of money towards extra nourishment. The award is totally silent on this. Similarly, the award is silent about any attendant charges. Therefore, towards extra nourishment Rs.5,000 per month calculated for four months comes to Rs.20,000 and towards attendant charges Rs.5,000 for a period of four months calculated at Rs.20,000 shall be granted. 10. Thus, an additional amount of Rs.80,000/- shall be granted to the appellant/claimant. This is in addition to what was granted by the claims tribunal. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the appellant. 11. 10. Thus, an additional amount of Rs.80,000/- shall be granted to the appellant/claimant. This is in addition to what was granted by the claims tribunal. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the appellant. 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 12.03.2012 of the learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum – Additional District Judge, Guntur in MVOP.No.1603 of 2010 from Rs.1,21,500/- to Rs.2,01,500/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondent/APSRTC is directed to deposit the amount after giving due credit to amounts, if any, deposited already within 30 days before the claims tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.