THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO.2739 of 2011 JUDGMENT:- The appeal is filed by the claimant questioning the quantum of compensation granted in O.P.No.48 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The appellant herein claims to have received injuries in a motor accident on 05-12-1999 when a lorry/tipper bearing No.AP 11-T-4320 is said to have hit him being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. He claims to have received multiple injuries and he said to be a butler in a club and earning Rs.3000/- per month and suffered disability and loss of earnings. He claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The first respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte in the lower Tribunal and second respondent is the Insurance Company. The second respondent filed a counter denying the allegations and putting the petitioner to strict proof with regard to nature of injuries and quantum of compensation. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.40,000/-. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT:- There is no dispute about the nature of the incident and the Insurance Company has not filed any appeal questioning the liability. As can be seen from the evidence on record, apart from examining himself the petitioner also examined PW.2 who is the Orthopaedic Doctor. As can be seen from the evidence of PW.1, the petitioner is said to have suffered fracture of Pelvis and Urethral injury and the petitioner is said to be in hospital from 06-12-1999 to 30-12-1999. The evidence of PW.2 shows that there was permanent disability and evidently for which there is no certificate issued by him. The lower Tribunal has considered the nature of the injury and granted a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and further a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and also a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the evidence of PW.2 about the nature of disability and also loss of earnings. Evidently, the evidence of PW.2 is not supported by any medical evidence, but, however, since the petitioner has been confined in the hospital and is only a casual employee, due to injury and operation he must have suffered loss of earning for sufficient time. Therefore, taking into consideration the above fact, I feel ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.70,000/- is granted in stead of Rs.40,000/- as granted by the lower Tribunal. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part. The appellant/claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.70,000/- in stead of Rs.40,000/- as granted by the lower Tribunal. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 22-11-2011 TSNR