THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2076 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order dated 30.06.2006 in O.P.No.2217 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by the claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal. The claimant is said to have received injuries in the motor accident on 19.09.2004 while proceeding on a motorcycle near AOC gate, Secunderabad, a Tata Indica bearing No.AP 02G 6588 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner received two grievous injuries and he was treated in a private hospital and operated and he was advised to take bed rest for six months. The petitioner is a businessman earning about Rs.5,000/- per month. The 1st respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurance company, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent filed a counter denying the nature of accident, nature of injuries and its liability. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the manner in which the assessment of the compensation made by the lower Tribunal is not correct and the lower Tribunal should not have ignored the evidence of P.W.2 about the disability and the loss of income arrived at by the lower Tribunal is also less. Evidently, so far as the nature of incident and its cause is concerned, there is no dispute. So far as the injuries said to have been suffered by the petitioner is concerned, the fracture of left tibia and also injury to the chest and abdomen as claimed by the petitioner. The lower Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.20,000/-. According to the evidence of P.W.2, the petitioner was said to have been seen by him on 22.11.2005 and he has gone through the discharge summaries of private hospital and he found that there is united fracture of left limb and stiffness of left knee and because of that the petitioner could not sit and squat. According to him, there is a disability of 25%. The lower Tribunal has evidently taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was hospitalized and has spent a sum of Rs.37,965/- for medical expenses. The loss of income was taken into consideration fixing the income of the petitioner at Rs.1,250/- per month. From the evidence on record, it shows that the petitioner had the fracture of the knee and consequently he was in hospital for some time and there is said to be some partial disability as opined by P.W.2. Therefore, the loss of income of the petitioner can reasonably fixed at Rs.15,000/- consequent on the injuries, so also towards the disability a sum of Rs.5,000/- is granted. The total compensation to which the petitioner will be entitled is Rs.77,965/- (Rs.15,000/- + 20,000/- + 5,000/- + 37,965/-) rounded off to Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only). Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 15-09-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2076 of 2011 DATE: 15-09-2011 MR