THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3588 OF 2005 DATED: 22-10-2009 Between: Bheemavarapu Nageswara Rao. ..... PETITIONER And D.Jagadesh & another. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 30-09-2003, in O.P.No.1233 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District, wherein the claim of the appellant was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.34,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment with proportionate costs. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. None appeared for the 1st respondent. Perused the record. 3. The appellant filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the injury sustained by him in the motor accident that occurred on 19-07-1999. According to the appellant, he suffered fracture of the left leg tibia and fibula and he was admitted in Kamineni hospital for treatment and subsequently he continued treatment in Adarsha Orthopedic hospital, wherein he was operated and steel rod was fixed in his left leg. He claimed total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Respondents opposed the claim. 4. Claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents, but Ex.B1- copy of the policy was marked. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver-1st respondent. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for the grievous injury sustained by him and Rs.19,000/- towards medical expenses incurred by him making a total of Rs.34,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. fastening joint and several liability on the respondents. Not satisfied with the amount, the present appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the claimant has undergone operation for fixing up the rod and subsequently underwent another operation for removal of the rod and the Tribunal has not taken the said aspects into consideration and also failed to award any compensation for the permanent disability. It is stated that the claimant has not examined any of the doctors, who treated him at Kamineni hospital or Adarsh Orthopedic hospital. 7. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the claimant underwent any operation for fixing of the rod at the first instance and the second operation for removal of the same. Ex.A5 is only a prescription given by Adarsh Orthopedic hospital, where the claimant is stated to have been advised to undergo operation for removal of the plate and also for bone grafting. There is however nothing on record to show that the claimant underwent any such operation as advised under Ex.A5. Ex.A4, which is the discharge card issued by Kamineni hospital, shows that the claimant was admitted on 19-07-1999 and discharged on 22-07-1999. It further shows that the claimant refused to undergo surgery and he left the hospital against the medical advice. Even as per Ex.A4 the claimant underwent treatment only for three days at Kamineni hospital for the fracture injury. There is no evidence as to what kind of treatment was taken by the claimant. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- for the grievous injury sustained by him, which includes the claim for pain and suffering. In fact, as per the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the compensation that can be ordered for a grievous injury is only Rs.5000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.19,000/- towards medical expenses incurred by the claimant, as evidenced by a bunch of medical bills-Ex.A9, and there is no dispute regarding the same. As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- for the grievous injury, it is considered that no further amount needs to be granted separately for pain and suffering. As the claimant was in hospital only for three days, the plea for awarding separate amount for extra nourishment and attendant charges is also not tenable. As there is no evidence to show that the claimant has undergone any further treatment or surgery subsequent to discharge from the Kamineni hospital, no amount can be awarded towards any further or future medical expenses. The question of granting any compensation for loss of earning capacity does not arise as there is nothing on record to show that the injury has resulted in any permanent disability. 8. In the circumstances, it is held that the amount awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.34,000/- is just and reasonable and there are no valid or justifiable grounds for any enhancement. 9. In the result, Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd October, 2009 Tsy