THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2852 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is ﬁled against the order dated 02.03.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.72 of 2004 on the ﬁle of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kurnool questioning the quantum of compensation. A claim was made for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- by the claimant for the injuries received in a motor accident on 26.07.2003 when he along with his casual labour, after attending to jumper work, was returning on a motor cycle, the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 9837 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which, he suﬀered injuries and disability. The respondent has disputed the nature of the incident and the claim for compensation. The lower Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, has granted a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, 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 is concerned, there is not of much evidence and so also the nature of injuries and treatment is concerned, there is not of much dispute and it is proved by the evidence of P.W.2. The medical expenses were also considered. However, as can be seen from the order towards loss of earnings, the petitioner claimed Rs.69,000/- and he was said to be not on duty for 160 days and though the certiﬁcate was said to be available, it was not ﬁled and the lower Tribunal, taking into consideration the salary certiﬁcate, which was also not ﬁled, considered the loss of earnings at Rs.32,546/- for a period of four months and granted the same amount. This particular composition of the compensation is not tenable. Evidently, the claimant is a Government employee and if he has gone on leave, the proceedings of leave should have been ﬁled and they were not ﬁled before the lower Tribunal. So also, if he has gone on leave, he would have been paid salary during the leave period and there will be a credit for leave. There is no proof that he was granted leave on loss of salary. Therefore, in the absence of such material, the lower Tribunal could not have taken into consideration the loss of earnings. Therefore, I feel that this amount of Rs.32,546/-, which was granted by the lower Tribunal as loss of salary for four months without there being any material on record, cannot be sustained and accordingly the order of the lower Tribunal is set aside and the compensation to a tune of Rs.32,546/- is disallowed. The lower Tribunal also found that the claimant is entitled for more than the amount of claim, taking into consideration the above facts, the amount of compensation is ﬁxed at Rs.75,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy ﬁve thousand only). Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 23-11-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2852 of 2011 DATE: 23-11-2011 MR