IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A. NO.2598 OF 2008 Between : Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep.by Managing Director. .... APPELLANT A N D Bommu Chinna Veera Reddy and others … RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A. NO.2598 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This M.A.C.M.A. under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, ‘the Act’) is directed against the order and decree, dated 18.03.2008 in M.V.O.P.No.662 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-First Additional District Judge, Kadapa, whereby a compensation of Rs.2,78,000/- was awarded to the petitioners as against the claim of Rs.3,50,000/- for the death of the deceased B.Kesava Reddy in a motor accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioners herein are the legal representatives of the deceased B.Kesava Reddy, who died in the Motor Accident on 15.12.2005. The petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. The Tribunal after adducing evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.2,78,000/- under all heads and awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon. Aggrieved by the said findings, the present M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the respondent on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very excessive and the reasons mentioned in the award are not sustainable. 4. Now the point for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is sustainable or not. 5. The accident is not disputed before this Court. P.W.1 who is wife of the deceased deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-4315. According to her immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Badvel. Since the deceased was sustained fracture to his skull, the deceased was referred to Government Hospital, Kadapa and later to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, where the Doctors conducted operation on the skull and discharged on 30.12.2005. Apart from fracture to skull, the deceased also sustained injury to his right eye, as a result the deceased was admitted in Medivison Hospital, Hyderabad, where the Doctors treated the deceased and reported that the eye ball was lost due to nerve brain was blocked. Thereafter, the deceased was admitted in a private hospital, Mydukur. As his condition was serious, the injured was again admitted in Government General Hospital, Kurnool, where he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. Ex.A.4 is the death certificate, which reads the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained by him in a road accident. The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.30,000/- towards transportation charges; Rs.25,000/- towards personal expenses under the head of special damages and Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.30,000/- towards love and affection; Rs.50,000/- loss of consortium; Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of earnings under the head of general damages. 6. The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards transportation charges. In proof the same they also filed Ex.A.7 transportation bill, but, the concerned who issued Ex.A.7 is not examined. Therefore, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges. By evaluating the evidence on record in particular the evidence of P.W.1 and basing on Exs.A5 to A.14, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- towards contribution of the deceased to his family. Apart from this a further sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium; Rs.5000/- towards attendant and extra nourishment; Rs.2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. In total an amount of Rs.2,78,000/- was awarded to the petitioners. 7. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal, while granting the compensation, is sustainable and that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J MARCH 28, 2011. YVL