JUDGMENT: 1. The injured claimant in an automobile accident impugns the award dated 20.06.2012 of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa in MVOP.No.10 of 2008. 2. Respondent No.1 herein is the owner of the offending vehicle namely Allwyn Mini Lorry bearing registration No. AP 04 V3884. It was insured with respondent No.2. 3. Heard arguments of Sri D.Dora Babu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri N.Rama Krishna, the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. The appellant herein raised a compensation claim under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 stating that he was a Revenue Inspector working in MRO Office, Valluru Mandal of Kadapa District. On 17.07.2006 at about 10 am while he was riding his motor bike in Kadapa City, the offending mini lorry being driven rashly or negligently by its driver dashed him and caused multiple fractures and injuries. He claimed Rs.8,00,000/- towards compensation. 5. The owner of the vehicle did not choose to contest. The Insurance company raised its contest denying all the facts alleged in the petition. 6. On the rival pleadings, the learned claims tribunal settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries owing to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 26 U 9520 owned by respondent No.1 on 17.07.2006 at 10.00 am near New Vinayakaswamy temple NH Road? 2. Whether respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable for the compensation claimed by the petitioner? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as claimed by him? 4. To what relief? 7. For claimant, PWs.1 to 3 testified and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. For respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. After making a detailed analysis of evidence produced, the learned claims tribunal found that by the date of accident, the offending mini lorry was having a valid and effective insurance policy and the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid driving licence and there were no violations of insurance policy conditions. After making a detailed analysis of evidence produced, the learned claims tribunal found that by the date of accident, the offending mini lorry was having a valid and effective insurance policy and the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid driving licence and there were no violations of insurance policy conditions. After considering Ex.A1/ FIR and Ex.A2/ Charge sheet which disclosed that the accident was out of rash or negligent driving of the mini lorry by its driver and after considering the sworn evidence of claimant/PW.1, the learned claims tribunal arrived at the conclusion that there was no fault on part of the claimant and the accident was out of rash or negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry and therefore fastened liability on the owner as well as insurer of the offending vehicle. 8. In the present appeal, there has been no dispute about those findings of the learned claims tribunal. Therefore, nothing more needs be detailed here. 9. The evidence of claimant as PW.1 with reference to his injuries was sought to be sustained from the evidence of two doctors who examined him and deposed as PW.2 and 3 before the claims tribunal. The claimant produced Ex.A4 and A5 medical certificates indicating the physical disability he acquired. Ex.A6 prescriptions and Ex.A7/MRI scan of brain and Ex.A8/ X-Rays and Ex.A9/ medical bills were produced. There is also on record Ex.A3 wound certificate. 10. One of the injuries sustained by the claimant was above the left eyebrow. Medical record indicates a laceration measuring ½ x ¼ cm x skin deep on the nose. PW.2 was the doctor who issued Ex.A4. He was a member of medical board. According to PW.2, the injury at the left eye brow caused damage resulting in visual disability for the claimant and the board assessed it at 30% and recorded that as partial permanent disability. 11. The evidence of PW.2 and 3/ doctors and the X-Ray films disclosed there were fractures radius of left wrist. PW.3 stated that a surgery was conducted and even after that there was malunited colles fracture right, with painful and restricted movements of right wrist and malunited colles fracture left with painful and restricted movements of left wrist. There was reduced grip wrists of both the hands. Ex.A5 is the disability certificate issued, as deposed by PW.3 and in their assessment, the claimant suffered 45% disability. There was reduced grip wrists of both the hands. Ex.A5 is the disability certificate issued, as deposed by PW.3 and in their assessment, the claimant suffered 45% disability. 12. Learned claims tribunal after considering all that evidence granted 1. Towards pain and suffering – Rs.21,000/- 2. Towards transportation expenses – Rs.5,000/- 3. Towards medical expenses – Rs.10,000/- 4. Towards extra nourishment – Rs.3,000/- 5. Towards fractures sustained for the wrists – Rs. 25,000/- 13. Thus, a total of Rs.64,000/- was granted as against claim of Rs.8,00,000/-. The learned claims tribunal granted 6% interest per annum from the date of petition and directed that R1 and R2 are jointly and severally liable for that and granted one month time for deposit. 14. Sri D.Dora Babu, learned counsel for appellant contends that learned claims tribunal grossly erred in declining to grant any compensation for visual disability. Despite production of medical bills supported by prescriptions very meager amount was granted towards medical expenses. Further contention raised is that the compensation granted under various heads was not in proportion to what was actually incurred. It is on these grounds, the award is impugned. 15. Sri N.Rama Krishna, the learned counsel representing R2/Insurance company argued that the award granted by the claims tribunal is in accordance with the evidence that was produced before the claims tribunal and all the contentions that are raised herein were considered and after furnishing adequate reasons, the learned claims tribunal rejected the excess claims made by the claimant and there is no warrant for interference in this appeal and seeks dismissal of the appeal. 16. The point that falls for consideration is: “ Whether the compensation awarded is not just and reasonable in terms of the evidence made available before the claims tribunal?” POINT: 17. As a matter of fact, at paragraph No.10 of its award, the learned claims tribunal recorded that the medical opinion was that there was 30% partial permanent disability with reference to vision of the claimant/appellant. With reference to it, nothing was granted by the claims tribunal. The reason for not granting anything, in the words of the claims tribunal, is that PW.2/doctor issued the certificate but he was not the doctor who treated the claimant. With reference to it, nothing was granted by the claims tribunal. The reason for not granting anything, in the words of the claims tribunal, is that PW.2/doctor issued the certificate but he was not the doctor who treated the claimant. That there was no evidence to show that the claimant had good vision prior to this accident so as to say that he had got decreased vision subsequent to the accident. It observed that from the medical record, the claimant was having diabetes. It is for these reasons, it declined to grant any compensation to him. In the opinion of this court, none of these reasons can be justified. Learned claims tribunal failed to consider the fact that it was not the case of anyone that the claimant had decreased vision even before the accident. Medical board which examined the injured victim found decreased vision and classified it as visual disability 30% partial permanent. There was no evidence before the claims tribunal to say that diabetes was the cause of this visual impairment. Therefore, the fact that there was visual disability and it is permanent partial has to be accepted. 18. With reference to the above injury, the case of the claimant in this appeal is that earlier to this accident, he was a Revenue Inspector with field duties and now because of the injuries he sustained, he was no more found fit for field duties and he was given posting in the office itself. It is argued that while he was holding field duties, he used to get certain allowances towards TA and DA. He used to get Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month and now he lost it. Having considered this submission, it has to be stated that from the evidence of PW.1, the claims tribunal recorded that the claimant did not suffer in his employment and in fact in the normal course, he got his promotion also. Being a Government servant, he was obliged to do such of those duties which were assigned to him. TA and DA are not sources for additional income. They are only to defray the expenses incurred while one was engaged in field duties. Therefore, the claim that there was loss of TA and DA cannot be accepted. There was no evidence that his decrease in vision resulted in any working disability. TA and DA are not sources for additional income. They are only to defray the expenses incurred while one was engaged in field duties. Therefore, the claim that there was loss of TA and DA cannot be accepted. There was no evidence that his decrease in vision resulted in any working disability. Thus, what remained was only a loss of physical endowment resulting in loss of amenities. A person with God given natural vision functions more comfortably. A person who had decreased vision because of the injuries he sustained in an accident while it may not affect his employability, it certainly affects natural ability. Learned claims tribunal erred in not considering these aspects. After considering all the material on record, this court is of the view that towards decreased vision suffered by the appellant, he shall be granted Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards loss of natural amenities. 19. Towards medical expenses, the claimant produced 27 medical bills as per Ex.A9 disclosing that he expended Rs.78,863.94. Learned claims tribunal granted Rs.10,000/-. It failed to offer any reason as to why it did not grant what was disclosed by Ex.A9 medical bills. Actual expenses incurred shall always be reimbursed. Therefore, appellant shall be granted an additional amount of Rs.69,000/- towards actual medical expenses. 20. As the evidence of PW.1 as well as doctor indicated that the claimant had to undergo various medical tests over a long period. Therefore, he must be adequately compensated towards transportation charges and extra nourishment. Claims tribunal granted Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment. An addition of Rs.7,000/- is granted. Towards transportation charges Rs.5,000/- was granted by the claims tribunal. An addition of Rs.10,000/- is granted. Thus, the compensation of Rs.64,000/- that was granted in the impugned award has to be enhanced and an additional sum of Rs.1,86,000/- shall be granted. This shall carry 6% interest from the date of petition. The additional amount shall be deposited before the claims tribunal by the Insurance company within 30 days. Accordingly, the point is answered. 21. In the result, this appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 20.06.2012 of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum – VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa in MVOP.No.10 of 2008 from Rs.64,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 21. In the result, this appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 20.06.2012 of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum – VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa in MVOP.No.10 of 2008 from Rs.64,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No.2/The Oriental Insurance Company Limited 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.