THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO.2423 of 2011 JUDGMENT:- The first respondent, in O.P.No.882 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, is the appellant herein. A claim was filed for Rs.1,50,000/- by the claimant/PW.1. PW.1 is said to be coming on a motorcycle on 20-05-1998 at about 10.30 A.M, and at that time a car bearing No.AP.9E-716 belonging to the first respondent/appellant being driven by its driver came and dashed against the claimant, as a result of which, he received multiple injuries. He is said to be employee in R.D.O Office and did not attend for 3 ½ months. The appellant herein has filed a counter disputing the involvement of the car and entrustment of the same to the driver; nature of the incident and also the claim for compensation. After considering the material evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has accepted the nature of the incident and granted a compensation of Rs.80,225/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed. Now the points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the car bearing No.AP-9E-716 belonging to the appellant was involved in the accident? 2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINTS:- The contention of the appellant is that the car was not at all involved and it was mistakenly added and consequently there is no liability. So far as this fact is concerned, apart from the evidence of PW.1, the police have conducted the investigation and a charge sheet was filed under Ex.A-2 and found the involvement of the car. For the reasons best known to the appellant, he did not go into the box to disprove the liability. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, it is not open for the appellant to contend that his car was not involved. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, evidently there is a simple fracture that was heeled even from the evidence of PW.2 and the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. Though medical expenses are claimed at Rs.54,300/-, the lower Tribunal has accepted only to a tune of Rs.37,800/-. Evidently, the evidence of PW.2 supports the treatment to PW.1 and also the operation and the factum that the claimant was in hospital for 23 days. He claims to have treated PW.1 at Geetha Nursing Home. The treatment, if any, at Gandhi hospital is not proved on payment. Therefore, on the quantum of medical expenses and also the proof of the same, there is no evidence. Evidently, the petitioner is a Government employee. There is no material to show that the petitioner has not claimed any medical reimbursement from the Government. The lower Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.17,425/- as loss of wages which is also not proper. Evidently, the petitioner was said to be on half-pay leave for a period of 92 days and consequently the credit was given for 184 days and it clearly goes to show that the salary was drawn for this period. It is a privilege which is conferred on the Government employee and consequently the petitioner cannot complain that he lost wages or lost earnings. Therefore, the lower court granting the above sum is not proper and on perusal of the entire evidence and also the nature of the injuries and the treatment, I feel that the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal appears to be on a higher side and I feel ends of justice would meet if a compensation is confined to Rs.50,000/- on all counts in stead of Rs.80,225/- as granted by the lower Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the award of the lower Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 15-11-2011 TSNR