JUDGMENT : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. 1. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum- Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.177 of 2008, dated 31.05.2010, the petitioner/injured in the said O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/injured filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 26.11.2007. As stated by the petitioner, on 26.11.2007 at about 12 ‘o’ clock, when he was proceeding on his bike bearing No.AP-23L-7008 from Peddapur Village to Hyderabad via Shankerpally and when reached near Donthanpally College, one TATA ACE bearing No.AP-9Y-8040 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came at a high speed and dashed against the bike of the petitioner, due to which, he received Head injury and grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and took treatment from 26.11.2007 to 01.12.2007 as inpatient and later underwent treatment in private hospitals and incurred a huge expenditure towards transportation, medicines and treatment. 4. Based on a complaint, Police of Shankerpally Police Station registered a case in Crime No.173 of 2007 under Section 337 IPC and filed charge sheet under Section 338 IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle. 5. It is stated by the petitioner that due to sustaining of head injury, he is unable to attend to his normal duties and also unable to speak properly. As the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime TATA ACE bearing No.AP-9Y-8040, as such, he filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of subject TATA ACE bearing No.AP-9Y-8040. 6. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1/Owner of TATA ACE bearing No.AP-9Y-8040 remained ex-parte. 7. As the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime TATA ACE bearing No.AP-9Y-8040, as such, he filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of subject TATA ACE bearing No.AP-9Y-8040. 6. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1/Owner of TATA ACE bearing No.AP-9Y-8040 remained ex-parte. 7. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed its counter denying the rash and negligent driving on part of the driver of TATA ACE bearing No.AP-9Y-8040, age, occupation, income of the petitioner, injuries sustained by him, treatment taken by him and medical expenses incurred by him and contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was having valid and subsisting driving license at the time of accident and that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim against it. 8. Based on the above, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for trial:- (i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what quantum and from whom? (iii) To what relief? 9. In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner/injured examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4 on his behalf. Since respondent No.1 remained ex-parte, on behalf of respondent No.2/Insurance Company, no witness was examined, however got marked Ex.B1-Copy of insurance policy with consent. 10. Taking into consideration the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the claim petition by awarding an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Having not satisfied with the said compensation amount, the claim petitioner/injured preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of the same. 11. Heard Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the Appellant/injured as well as Sri N.Chandrashekhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel on record representing Respondent No.2/Insurance Company. 12. The contentions of the learned counsel for appellant/injured are that the learned Tribunal, by considering Ex.A3-wound certificate and the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner, ought to have awarded compensation as claimed for; it also failed to grant any amount towards extra-nourishment and transport and therefore prayed to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount. 13. 12. The contentions of the learned counsel for appellant/injured are that the learned Tribunal, by considering Ex.A3-wound certificate and the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner, ought to have awarded compensation as claimed for; it also failed to grant any amount towards extra-nourishment and transport and therefore prayed to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount. 13. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.2/Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation which do not require any further enhancement of the same. 14. Now, the point that emerges for determination is, Whether the appellant/injured is entitled for enhancement of compensation? POINT:- 15. Since there is no dispute about occurrence of accident and liability of the respondents and since the findings arrived by the Tribunal on those aspects were not challenged, this Court is not inclined to discuss the said aspects. The only ground that has to be discussed in the present Appeal is with regard to quantum of compensation. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal failed to consider Ex.A3-wound certificate and awarded meager compensation. 17. A perusal of Ex.A2-Injury certificate as mentioned in Appendix of Evidence clearly discloses that the petitioner has received laceration of 15cm x 14 cm on right side of scalp and abrasion on the face extending from right cheek to occipital region. But the Medical Officer did not make any mention about the nature of said injuries i.e., whether they are simple or grievous in nature. Hence, the learned Tribunal, by considering the age, occupation and nature of injuries, awarded global compensation of Rs.5,000/- on all counts which this Court finds it to be meager and hereby award a sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards two simple injuries. Since the petitioner/injured has undergone treatment for a considerable period due to the said injuries, he might have incurred certain amount towards his medical expenses and transport. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards Medical expenses and transportation charges. Also considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner has to intake nutritious food to recover from the said injuries. Hence, this Court hereby grant a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. In total, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation under different heads as calculated hereunder:- S.No. Details of Head Awarded by Tribunal Awarded by this Court 1. Also considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner has to intake nutritious food to recover from the said injuries. Hence, this Court hereby grant a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. In total, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation under different heads as calculated hereunder:- S.No. Details of Head Awarded by Tribunal Awarded by this Court 1. Global compensation on all counts Rs.5,000/- - 2 2 simple injuries - Rs.10,000/-(Rs.5,000/- each) 3. Medical and Transportation charges - Rs.5,000/- 4. Extra nourishment - Rs.5,000/- TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.5,000/- Rs.20,000/- 18. In the result, the Appeal is partly-allowed by enhancing the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. Except the said finding, the findings arrived by the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain undisturbed. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.