HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2665 of 2011 JUDGMENT: Questioning the award in M.V.O.P.No.106 of 2001 on the file of the Special Judge for the Trial of Offences under S.Cs. & S.Ts. (POA) Act-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad, this appeal has been filed. 2. A claim for compensation of Rs.15.00 lakhs was made for the petitioner, who is a student, and said to have received injuries in a motor accident on 19-02-2001 while getting down from the bus bearing Regn. No.ATR 4160, due to the rash and negligent driving of the same. The petitioner received multiple grievous injuries including compound fractures and he was treated in hospital and suffered due to the injuries. 3. The appellant-insurance company has disputed the nature of incident and also the nature of the compensation. 4. The trial Court after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.A-1 to A-11 and Ex.B-1, granted compensation of Rs.6,32,900/-. Questioning the same, the appeal is filed. 5. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the trial Court is legal and sustainable. 6. So far as nature of accident and nature of the injuries is concerned, there is no serious dispute and the evidence on record establishes the same. The major portion of the compensation awarded by the trial Court is towards the medical expenses of Rs.4,38,900/- which is stipulated by the bills and which is also not seriously disputed. Apart from it, the trial Court has taken into consideration the nature of the injuries and granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and also Rs.1.00 lakh towards his disability. The trial Court has also granted Rs.25,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.4,000/- towards transportation charges. 7. So far as the compensation for pain and suffering and also attendant charges is concerned, as the petitioner was in hospital for a long time is considered, it cannot be said to be not proper. 8. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial Court has granted a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh towards disability taking the earning capacity of the petitioner, who is a student. Evidently, the disability need not be considered only on the basis of the earning capacity. The learned counsel for the appellant, has relied upon para-39 which only refers to a reported judgment relied on by the standing counsel for the insurance company, but not this case, where there is no proof of any disability with regard to the injuries. 9. Admittedly, several injuries have been suffered by the claimant at a young age, some of them were also to vital parts and he was in hospital for a longer time and even if the disability is not proved by medical evidence and discharge certificate does not disclose the disability, however, as can be seen from para-23, the doctor who treated the petitioner stated that the disability is 20% and the trial Court has accepted the same. Therefore, the determination of compensation about disability cannot be said to be irregular and particularly taking the age of the petitioner, the award does not call for any interference. Therefore, the amount of quantum is held to be just and reasonable. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________ 04-11-2011 kvr