THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A.No.2943 of 2003 and Cross Objections (SR) No.49306 of 2004 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 17.10.2002 in O.P.No.843 of 1998 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company mainly urging that the Tribunal, without going into the merits of the case granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation, which is excessive and exorbitant. The claimant in the said O.P. filed cross objections in this appeal urging that the Tribunal granted very meagre compensation though the injured is a RMP doctor and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The petitioner filed O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. The respondents’ counsel did not dispute the accident. Now, the point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is sustainable? In proof of the accident and injuries sustained by PW.1, the injured himself examined as PW.1 and filed documents Exs.A.1 to A.7. Except the injured, no other witnesses were examined before the Tribunal to prove the aforesaid documents. The Tribunal without assigning any reasons granted a compensation of Rs.50,000/- ie., Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards medicines and extra nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards past and future sufferings. The Tribunal did not specifically mention under what heads the aforesaid amounts were granted without discussing evidence on record, more over, as per wound certificate Ex.A.2. The contention as per the discharge certificate is that the injured was hospitalised from 08.09.1998 to 13.09.1998. If really the injured had taken treatment in private Nursing Home, he ought to have examined the doctor, who treated him but the same was withheld by the petitioner for the reasons best known to him. When there is a claim for Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by PW.1, it is his bounden duty to discharge the initial burden in proving that the injuries sustained by him are grievous and thereby he is not able to discharge his duties as RMP Doctor. But nothing is on record on that score. In the circumstances, granting of compensation of Rs.50,000/- by the Tribunal without any basis in my view is erroneous. Though the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation to the victims in Motor Vehicle accidents, the Court should exercise its discretion with utmost care and caution while granting compensation. In this case, admittedly as per Ex.A.2 the petitioner sustained simple injury ie, only contusion. In that view of the matter, granting of Rs.50,000/- compensation by the Tribunal below is very much excessive. Hence, I see no grounds for granting of any enhancement of compensation as pleaded by the claimants in the cross appeal. However, while taking into consideration, the gravity of the injury as noted in Ex.A.2 granting of only Rs.10,000/- is just and reasonable. With this modification, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is granted to the petitioner towards compensation. Accordingly, C.M.A.No.2943 of 2003 is allowed while dismissing the cross objections No.49306 of 2004. It is represented that pursuant to the decree of the Tribunal, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was deposited while obtaining stay and the same was withdrawn by the claimant. In view of the findings in this appeal, the insurance company is at liberty to take appropriate steps against the concerned for recovery of the amount to which they are entitled. __________________ K.S.APPA RAO,J 21st March,2011 PNV