1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the award and decree dated 05.11.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2222 of 2013 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.07.2013.

2. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding a meager sum of Rs.30,000/-despite the appellant sustaining three grievous injuries and suffering a permanent disability. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of P.W.2, who assessed the disability at 30%, and P.W.3, who confirmed the nature of injuries as grievous. Thus the learned counsel prayed this Court to allow the appeal and enhance the quantum of compensation.

4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. It is argued that the surgery was conducted under the Arogyasree scheme and the appellant failed to prove permanent disability as per the prescribed norms.

5. As seen from the material placed on record, the accident occurred on 18.07.2013 at about 7:00 PM, while the appellant was returning home in a tractor after completing agricultural work, a lorry bearing No.AP 23X 0076, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the tractor near Tata Coffee Company at Toopran village. The Tribunal basing on the oral and documentary evidence held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. There is no dispute with regard to the said finding.

6. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.30,000/-, which included Rs.15,000/- for three grievous injuries and Rs.15,000/-for medical expenses. Upon perusal of the medical evidence, it is observed that the appellant sustained an inter-traumatic fracture of the left hip and fractures of both the superior and inferior pubic rami, requiring surgical intervention and DHS fixation. Considering the severe nature of these orthopedic injuries and the prolonged treatment undergone at multiple hospitals, the amount awarded for grievous injuries is grossly inadequate. Consequently, the compensation for three grievous injuries is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- (at Rs.50,000/- per injury) to meet the ends of justice. Furthermore, the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards ancillary expenses despite the appellant being an agricultural laborer who was hospitalized for a significant period. This Court, therefore, awards Rs.20,000/- for extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/- for transportation charges. Regarding the loss of future earnings, although the Tribunal dismissed the disability claim due to technicalities in the certificate, the testimony of P.W.2 and the nature of the fractures clearly indicate a functional impact on her agricultural work. Taking her age as 40 years (multiplier 15) and a notional monthly income of Rs.4,500/-, and applying the 30% disability assessed by the doctor, the compensation for loss of income/disability is calculated as Rs.2,43,000/- (Rs.4,500 x 12 x 15 x 30%). The amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded for medical expenditure is maintained. Thus, the total compensation is re-assessed to Rs.4,38,000/- (Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.20,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.2,43,000/-).

7. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.4,38,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The remaining terms and conditions imposed by the Tribunal shall stand unaltered. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.