THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 3364 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the insurance company against the award dated 20.04.2005 in O.P.No.17 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Khammam at Kothagudem questioning the quantum of compensation. A claim was made by the claimant for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries received by him in a motor accident on 06.06.2001 when he was going on his cycle, he is said to have dashed with the car bearing No.TN-07-X-8845, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is said to have received multiple injuries and spent money for treatment and was a washer man and lost his earnings. The 1st and 2nd respondents remained ex parte and the 3rd respondent filed counter disputing the nature of the incident and also the nature of the liability and putting the petitioner to strict proof of the rashness and negligence and nature of injuries. The lower Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, has granted a compensation of Rs.80,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT: So far as the nature of the incident and the nature of the injuries received by the petitioner are concerned, there is no dispute about it. As can be seen from the evidence on record supported by the medical certificate, which is Ex.A-3, the petitioner has received eight (8) injuries out of them three injuries are grievous, which are lacerated wound on left malleolous, fracture of right foot second metatarsal and dislocation of the right shoulder. Evidently, the claimant was a washer man, the injury to the shoulder and also to the toe, causes disability even if it is a temporary permanent nature. The three fractures, which were received by him, also required some medical attendance and treatment and he must have been admitted in a hospital and spent money for treatment. Therefore, taking into consideration the above factors, the lower Tribunal has come to the conclusion that a sum of Rs.80,000/- is just and reasonable, it cannot be said that the amount of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is exhorbitant and unreasonable warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, there are no grounds in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, the rate of interest shall be at 7.5% per annum on the compensation amount granted by the lower Tribunal. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 29-11-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 3364 of 2011 DATE: 29-11-2011 MR