HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2144 of 2008 Date: 24-6-2011 Between United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Div. Office-III, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Through its Div. Office-I, Secunderabad, Rep. by its Sr. Div. Manager … Appellant/Respondent No.2 and A.Kistaiah … Respondent/Petitioner B.Kamala … Respondent/Respondent No.1 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2144 of 2008 Judgment: Heard both sides. 2. Being aggrieved against the order and decree dated 08-4-2008 in O.P.No.28 of 2005 on the file of the XVI Additional Chief Judge cum II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. 3. The appellant herein is the 2nd respondent in O.P.No.28 of 2005. The injured-claimant filed the said O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident on 08-6-2004. The injured himself was examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 Dr. R.Sree Ramulu and filed Exs.A-1 to A- 14. By evaluating the evidence on record, the tribunal below awarded a compensation of Rs.1,49,000/- under all heads. 4. Being aggrieved with the same, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal mainly urging that the tribunal below without any basis granted exorbitant compensation very liberally and urged that the awarded amount is not sustainable. 5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent-claimant while supporting the impugned order, urged that the tribunal below did not take into consideration the evidence on record adduced by the petitioner, granted only meagre compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses against the claim for Rs.54,000/-. 6. Now, the point for consideration is -- whether the order of the tribunal below is sustainable ? 7 . Point:- Admittedly, the appellant herein is the Insurance Company. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that granting of Rs.54,000/- towards loss of past earnings and Rs.25,000/- towards discomfort and inconvenience is beyond the purview of the Rules contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in view of the matter, the said amounts are deserved to be disallowed. The learned counsel further urged that granting of compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards ‘pain and suffering’ is also not sustainable as the petitioner failed to produce disability certificate. 8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 08-6-2004. The petitioner is aged 40 years and he was working as Supervisor in Pavan Poultry Farm on the date of accident. The factum of accident is not disputed. According to P.W.1, he sustained fracture to both bones of right leg and steel plates were inserted. In proof of the injuries he examined P.W.2 Dr. R.Sree Ramulu of Nivedita Orthopedic Centre. In support of his claim, the petitioner filed Exs.A-3 to A-14. 9. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.2, he did not state that the petitioner has any disability much less 15% and there is no proof to that effect. The tribunal below has also observed the same while evaluating the evidence of P.W.2. When there is no disability granting of compensation on that score, in my view, is not sustainable. 10. According to the evidence of P.W.1, soon after the accident he was shifted to Nivedita Orthopedic Centre, R.T.C. ‘X’ Roads, Hyderabad and he was admitted as inpatient on 08-6-2004 and a surgery was performed to his right leg on 10-6-2004 by way of inserting a steel rod and wound debridement was done and he was discharged on 17-6-2004. It is his further evidence that due to the fracture of both bones of right leg he became permanently disabled and unable to walk and his right leg is shortened by one inch. 11. During the course of cross-examination, he admitted that after the surgery he was admitted in Medicity hospital where bone grafting was done and he was inpatient for 36 days till 25-7-2005. The factum of the said treatment was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. While taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1 the tribunal below has rightly granted a compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards ‘pain and suffering’. 12. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the tribunal below failed to grant any amount towards the injury. Therefore, granting of Rs.25,000/- towards the said grievous injury is just and reasonable. 13. The tribunal below granted Rs.54,000/- towards ‘loss of past earnings’ and Rs.25,000/- towards ‘discomfort and inconvenience’ though there is no claim on that score. However, while taking into consideration the earnings of the deceased as Supervisor, his earning capacity can be taken as Rs.2,000/- per month. Accordingly, the compensation granted towards the loss of past earnings is reduced to Rs.10,000/-. The other amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards ‘discomfort and inconvenience’ is not sustainable. 14. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part reducing the compensation from Rs.1,49,000/- to Rs.1,05,000/- (Rupees one lakh and five thousand only). No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 24th June, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2144 of 2008 24th June, 2011.