IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.963 of 2007 DATE:16.11.2010 Between: National Insurance Company Limited …… Petitioner And Dasari Rajesh and 2 others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.963 of 2007 ORDER: The insurance company filed this appeal questioning award of compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- to the 1st respondent/injured granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial by award dated 27.10.2006 in O.P.No.182 of 2005. The appellant questions quantum of compensation, after having obtained permission from the lower Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. At this stage, there cannot be any dispute of the fact that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP 01 V 0990. 2) The claimant sustained 6 injuries, out of which 2 injuries are simple in nature and 4 injuries are fracture injuries which are grievous in nature. Grievous injuries in this case are (1) Fracture shaft of right femur middle, (2) Fracture medium condoyle of right femur with Hemothorasis, (3) Communated fracture upper end of right ulna and (4) Communated fracture lower end of right humerus with loss of bone pieces. P.W-2 is the doctor who treated the injured. P.W-2 made two surgical operations on the injured on 11.09.2005 by way of inserting rod in right femur shaft and right elbow. Having regard to nature of injuries sustained by the injured, out of which 2 fractures are communated fractures and surgical operations undergone by the injured, the lower Tribunal was right in awarding compensation of Rs.80,000/- towards non pecuniary damages for fractures together with pain and suffering. Further, the injured filed medical bills covered by Exs.A-17 to A-40 and A-45 to A-63 for total sum of Rs.40,580/-. Therefore, the lower Tribunal is justified in awarding the said amount towards medical expenses. The lower Tribunal is also justified in awarding transport expenses of Rs.3,000/- covered by Exs.A- 60 and A-61 and Rs.1,500/- towards extra nourishment. 3) The lower Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings during treatment. No doubt, as per evidence of P.W-2, the injured/P.W-1 was in the hospital from 11.09.2005 to 21.09.2005. Simply because he was discharged on 21.09.2005, it cannot be said that he did not take any medical treatment thereafter. For healing fractures and uniting of those fractures and for healing surgical wounds, the petitioner must have abstained from his work for a period of 3 or 4 months as cook in Rajdhani Mess, Metpalli. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that Rs.10,000/- awarded towards loss of earnings during treatment period, is in any way excessive. 4) As per Ex.A-66 permanent disability certificate issued by P.W-3 who is an Orthopaedic surgeon and Member of the District Medical Board, Karimnagar District, the injured was having disability of 45%. The lower Tribunal noticed that the disability percentage was corrected from 40% to 45% in Ex.A-66. Further, as per P.W-3’s evidence, there was inter- locking of nails of right femur shaft and also shortening of right leg by half an inch. The lower Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of future earnings on the basis of Ex.A-66 permanent disability certificate. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that there is no evidence to show that the injured suffered any loss of earning capacity due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. Irrespective of proof of loss of earning capacity, because of the disability of the injured, he has certainly physical discomfort throughout his life hampering his day-to-day life and work. The amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded as lumpsum towards loss of future earnings includes for the physical as well as mental discomfort being suffered by the injured during his future life. Therefore, I do not find any impropriety or irregularity in awarding the said amount to the claimant. Thus, on a whole, the award passed by the lower Tribunal is just, reasonable, appropriate and legal. 5) In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 16, 2010 ksh