JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant impugning the order dated 08.05.2007 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati in MVOP.No.308 of 2005. 2. Heard arguments of Kumari Shalini, the learned counsel appeared on behalf of Sri O.Uday Kumar, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri Gudi Srinivasu, the learned counsel for respondent No.2/ insurance company. 3. An injured claimant filed his claim for Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A Tata Sumo bearing registration No. AP 25 J 2805 is stated to be the offending vehicle. It is owned by R1/ Sri Eranna Chettivar and it was insured with R2/ M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The subject matter accident was registered as Cr.No.152 of 2009 by Chandragiri Police Station, Chittor District and FIR was exhibited as per Ex.A1. After due investigation, the driver of the offending vehicle was prosecuted by the State on presentation of its charge sheet/ Ex.A2. 4. On 20.05.2004, the injured claimant/ Sri C.Guru Prasad Reddy was a pillion rider on a motor bike being driven by Sri G.Venkataramanaiah and at about 12 noon, the offending vehicle travelling on Tirupati – Bhakarapet Road came at a menacing speed in rash or negligent manner by its driver and dashed the two wheeler. Both the riders of the motorcycle fell down. The claimant suffered a fracture on his right thigh and suffered two more injuries to his body. He was initially admitted to SVRR GG hospital, Tirupati where Ex.A3 wound certificate was issued and thereafter, he was shifted to Prasanth hospital, Tirupati where a surgery was conducted and GK interlocking nail was fixed for the right femur. He was in hospital from 21.05.2004 to 31.05.2004. 5. In response to his claim, the owner of the offending vehicle/ R1 did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company filed its counter refuting the narration made in the claim petition. 6. Based on the rival pleadings, learned claims tribunal settled the following issues for trail: 1. He was in hospital from 21.05.2004 to 31.05.2004. 5. In response to his claim, the owner of the offending vehicle/ R1 did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company filed its counter refuting the narration made in the claim petition. 6. Based on the rival pleadings, learned claims tribunal settled the following issues for trail: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident caused on 20-5-2004 at about 12-30 P.M,, 2 K.Ms after Kalyani Dam towards Bhakarapet due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of TATA Sumo bearing No.AP25-J 2805 belonging to the respondent No.1 insured with second respondent? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for in the petition? 3. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the claimant/ PWs.1 and 2 testified and Exs.A1 to A10 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. Insurance company/ R2 therein did not produce any oral evidence but produced a copy of the insurance policy as per Ex.B1. It is found undisputed that by the time of the subject matter accident, the offending Tata Sumo was having valid and effective insurance policy. PW.2 was the doctor who conducted surgery to the injured claimant. Ex.A4 is the discharge summary issued by Prasanth Hospital and Exs.A5 and A6 are the medical bills and receipts and Ex.A8 is surgery bill. Ex.A9 is salary certificate of the injured claimant. Exs.X1 and X2 are the case sheets issued by the Prasanth Hospital. Ex.A7 is the certificate of disability. On assessment of the oral and documentary evidence and the rival pleadings and contentions led by both sies, the learned claims tribunal granted the award under various heads and they are mentioned below: - Amount in Rs. 1. Towards 18% permanent disability 25,000/- 2. Towards pain and suffering 7,000/- 3. Towards actual medical expenses 21,267/- Thus, a total compensation of Rs.53,267/- was found as just compensation. 8. It passed the award in the following terms: “In view of the result on Issue Nos 1 and 2, the petition is allowed partly with proportionate costs directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay compensation amount of Rs.53,267/- to the petitioner with interest at 7.5% P.A., from the date of petition till the date of payment Advocate fee is fixed at RS.500/-. Two months time is granted for deposit of compensation amount into court. Two months time is granted for deposit of compensation amount into court. On deposit of compensation amount into court, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount together with entire accrued interest and costs immediately.” 9. Aggrieved by it, the injured claimant preferred this appeal. 10. Learned counsel for appellant contended that learned claims tribunal grossly erred in not granting appropriate compensation and it failed to grant compensation under various relevant heads and that it incorrectly assessed the income of the injured and meagre amounts granted by the award cannot be called as just compensation and therefore the reasonable compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- that was claimed by the claimant may be awarded by this court. 11. R1/ owner did not choose to appear and contest. Learned counsel for R2/ insurance company fervently argued that the learned claims tribunal meticulously considered the evidence on record and found that the claim made was excessive and therefore granted compensation as was required and there is no warrant for interference in this appeal. 12. The point that falls for consideration is Whether the impugned award cannot be maintained for its failure to grant just compensation? POINT: - 13. A reading of paragraph No.10 of the impugned award would show that the learned claims tribunal recorded a positive observation that the claimant must have spent not less than Rs.5,000/- towards extra diet. However, it failed to grant even that amount. This factual error is apparent. Therefore, Rs.5,000/- towards extra diet is now granted. 14. This was a case of a pillion rider and a motorbike suffered impact from the offending vehicle. The injured sustained a fracture and other injuries all over the body. It is quite clear that when such injuries affected his body, his clothes must have been spoiled. Before the claims tribunal, the injured claimant prayed for Rs.3,000/- towards damaged clothes. It is a pathetic reading that the learned chairman thought that sufficient evidence was not adduced to prove this aspect of the matter and refused to grant any amount. This unreasonable appreciation of evidence by the claims tribunal cannot be appreciated. Therefore, towards damage to clothes Rs.3,000/- is granted. The evidence of PW.1 was that he was working in Om Sai Krishna Enterprises, Tirumala and earning Rs.5,000/- towards his salary. In proof of it, Ex.A9 salary certificate was there. No sworn evidence was adduced against it. This unreasonable appreciation of evidence by the claims tribunal cannot be appreciated. Therefore, towards damage to clothes Rs.3,000/- is granted. The evidence of PW.1 was that he was working in Om Sai Krishna Enterprises, Tirumala and earning Rs.5,000/- towards his salary. In proof of it, Ex.A9 salary certificate was there. No sworn evidence was adduced against it. Learned claims tribunal recorded that it could not accept that evidence of PW.1. Be that as it may. It ought to have at least mentioned what according to it could have been the monthly earnings of the injured claimant. It failed to do it even that. In the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, it is recorded that the claimant was a salaried private employee earning Rs.5,000/- per month at the relevant time. As one would notice, he was hospitalized for ten days. Be it noted that after ten days, he was discharged from hospital does not mean that he completely recouped. A discharge certificate merely indicates further hospitalization was no longer needed. It is not unreasonable to think that the injured who suffered fracture and underwent surgery could not have attended the duties at least for a month. Towards loss of earnings, Rs.5,000/- was expected to be granted and the claims tribunal failed even addressing to that aspect of the matter and therefore this court is inclined to grant Rs.5,000/- towards actual loss of earnings. With reference to any physical disability acquired by the claimant, the observations of the claims tribunal are contradictory in terms. At page No.4 of the impugned award, it stated that claimant failed to obtain any disability certificate from the medical board. At once, it is to be stated that there is evidence on record in the form of Ex.A7 permanent disability certificate. No discussion was made in that regard by the claims tribunal. At page No.5 of the impugned award, learned claims tribunal stated that PW.2/ the medical officer gave treatment to the claimant and in his evidence, he stated that the claimant acquired 18% permanent disability because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Thus, on one hand, it observed that there was no legal evidence proving the permanent disability and on the other hand, it recorded that the claimant suffered permanent disability. The employment of claimant, in his own words, was that he was godown in charge. Thus, on one hand, it observed that there was no legal evidence proving the permanent disability and on the other hand, it recorded that the claimant suffered permanent disability. The employment of claimant, in his own words, was that he was godown in charge. Then the question that must be considered is whether this 18% physical disability resulted in reduction of his earning capacity. The evidence of PW.1/ the claimant and that of PW.2/ the doctor does not indicate as to how this 18% disability affected the earning capacity. Learned counsel for appellant failed to address this issue satisfactorily. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a loss of earning capacity on part of the claimant. However, the disability he acquired was found to be permanent. Therefore, adequate compensation should be granted to him towards loss of amenities as he could not now lead the life of a person with all fitness. Learned claims tribunal granted Rs.25,000/- towards this disability. In the opinion of this court, it is required to be raised to Rs.50,000/- by granting an additional amount of Rs.25,000/- to what was already granted. 15. Towards pain and suffering, the claim was for Rs.15,000/- and the tribunal granted Rs.7,000/-. For the reasons mentioned in the earlier paragraphs, this court is of the opinion that it is just and necessary to grant an additional amount of Rs.8,000/-. 16. Thus, the following additional amounts are granted. Additional amount in Rs. 1. Towards extra diet 5,000/- 2. Towards damage to clothes 3,000/- 3 Towards actual loss of earnings 5,000/- 4. Towards loss of amenities because of permanent disability 25,000/- 5. Towards pain and suffering 8,000/- Thus, an additional sum of Rs.46,000/- is granted. Together with what was granted in the impugned award, the additional amounts granted here would make it just compensation. Point is answered accordingly. 17. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 08.05.2007 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati in MVOP.No.308 of 2005 from Rs.53,267/- to Rs.99,267/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondent No.2/ M/s 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. The respondent No.2/ M/s 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.