HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY M.A.C.M.A. No.71 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved of the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.755 of 2002 vide award dated 16-08-2005 by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Cases – cum – Additional Family Court – cum – XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad, insurance company preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Appellant, which is insurer of the Hi-tech bus bearing No.KA-03-B-5577, is respondent No.2, respondent No.1 is claimant and respondent No.2, who is owner of the Hi-tech bus, is respondent No.1 in the O.P. before the trial Court. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the trial Court. 4. The case of the claimant before the trial Court is that on 10-09-2001 while he was travelling in the Hi-tech bus bearing No.KA- 03-B-5577, at about 7-00 am, near Aluguvanka bridge, Boyinapally village, as the driver of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, bus fell down in to a river, as a result, claimant’s right leg and right hand were fractured and he sustained several bleeding injuries all over the body. He was shifted to Mydhukur Ranga Singha Hospital, where he was given first aid. A case in Crime No.88 of 2001 was registered by the police of Duvvur Police Station against the driver of the bus for the offence under Section 338 IPC and investigated into. According to the claimant, he is working as a Commission Agent and he is an income tax assessee. Due to the accident, he is unable to walk without support and he sustained permanent disability and he sustained loss in the business. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1, owner of the bus, remained ex parte and respondent No.2, insurance company, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the trial Court: “1. Whether the accident in question took place on 10.9.01 at about 7 a.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Hi-tech bus No.KA-03-B-5577? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 7. To prove his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and his son as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-24. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral evidence was adduced except marking Ex.B-1, copy of the insurance policy, with consent of the parties. 8. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, trial Court awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,15,326/-, out of which Rs.75,000/- is awarded towards injuries, Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, Rs.5,000/- towards extra- nourishment, Rs.13,500/- towards loss of earnings and Rs.66,826/- towards medical expenses. Aggrieved of the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant, insurance company preferred this appeal. 9. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company (appellant) is that it is a case of two simple fractures sustained by the claimant and for those the compensation awarded by the trial Court under all the counts is on higher side. 10. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 11. According to the evidence of the claimant as PW.1, he sustained fracture of right leg and shoulder of right hand. The material on record reveals that claimant sustained comminuted fracture of right side tibia condyle, fracture of fibular neck and also chip fracture scapula on interior angle. Thus, all those factures are not on any vital or moving parts of the body like ankle, knee or hip and the injuries sustained by the claimant could have been healed without causing any inconvenience, as such, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the trial Court under all the heads is on higher side. A lump sum of Rs.75,000/- awarded for the injuries can be reduced to Rs.45,000/- at the rate of Rs.15,000/- for each fracture even accepting that claimant suffered three fractures. Further, the amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering can be reduced to Rs.15,000/- and the amount of Rs.66,826/- awarded towards medical expenses can be reduced to Rs.50,000/-. Thus, an amount of Rs.56,826/- is reduced from the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,58,500/- (Rupees one lakh fifty eight thousand five hundred only), which is also even slightly on higher side, instead of Rs.2,15,326/- awarded by the trail Court. 12. Accordingly, reducing the compensation as stated supra, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J October 29, 2010. PV