THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO.2849 of 2011 JUDGMENT:- The appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant questioning the quantum of compensation. An application was filed for a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor accident on 08-12-2002 at about 9.30 P.M while the petitioner was driving the motor cycle bearing No.AP.25-8461 on the side of the road, at that time when he reached at Town P.S Nizamabad, one motorcycle bearing No.AP-1-7518 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed against the petitioner, as a result, he sustained injuries and spent money for treatment. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and second respondent is the Insurance Company and they are jointly liable to pay the compensation. The first respondent remained ex parte and second respondent filed a counter disputing the allegations and putting the petitioner to strict proof with regard to nature of injuries and its liability. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has accepted the cause of accident, but, however granted a compensation of Rs.14,700/-. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT:- There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner has received injuries in a motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle, which was insured with the second respondent. As can be seen from the evidence on record, the petitioner is said to have received injury to head on occipital region and the evidence of PW.2 goes to show that after the incident he examined the petitioner on 02-08-2004 and gave certificate about the disability. Evidently, PW.2 did not treat the petitioner. The disability certificate, therefore, cannot be taken into consideration and it was rightly rejected by the lower Tribunal. The would certificate Ex.A-3 shows that the petitioner has received fracture of occipital bone left side at the base and it does not disclose fracture of the right leg or injuries on the other parts of the body as claimed by the petitioner. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the single fracture injury, but, however, by applying the second schedule under Section.163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the compensation was determined for the injury. The claim application is filed under Section.166 of the Act and, therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the determination of compensation for the injury as per the schedule is not proper. Evidently, the injury to the head is a grievous one and, therefore, I feel ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.15,000/- is granted towards for pain and suffering. The lower Tribunal has granted only Rs.700/- towards medical expenses and evidently due to the injury the petitioner was hospitalised and spent money for treatment and therefore, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is granted towards for medical expenses. The lower Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment and transportation. Therefore, the total compensation to which the petitioner is entitled to Rs.23,000/-, but, however, it is rounded to Rs.25,000/- and no compensation is granted for disability as the petitioner is in service and he did not loose any earning. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 22-11-2011 TSNR