HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2748 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the insurance company questioning the quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.O.P.No.319 of 2003, dated 11-03-2005 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad. 2. The petitioner is said to have received injuries in a motor accident while going in a Qualis from Chennai to Hyderabad, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. He received injuries on 30-01-2003. The 1st respondent is to be the owner and 2nd respondent is the appellant herein, who disputed the nature of injuries received by the petitioner and also the nature of incidnet. On consideration of the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has accepted the nature of incident and granted compensation of Rs.1,15,000/-. 3. The learned standing counsel for the insurance company represented that the application under Section 170 of M.V. Act has been filed in the lower Court and permission was obtained. 4. Therefore, the point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and proper? 5. So far as the nature of the incident, rashness and negligence attributed to the driver of the vehicle and insurer of the vehicle is concerned, there is no dispute. 6. The learned standing counsel for the insurance company- appellant contends that the petitioner has received only a single fracture, shaft of left femur and upper 1/3rd, and evidence of P.W.2 shows that the petitioner was operated on 04-02-2003 and discharged on 12-02-2003. According to the learned standing counsel, there is no proof of disability and the evidence of P.W.2 does not show that the injury did not cure. Therefore, the granting of compensation of Rs.40,000/- for the injuries and Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenditure and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards disability, granted by the lower Tribunal, is not proper. 7. Evidently, so far as the medical expenses of Rs.50,000/- is concerned, there is no proof and on what grounds, the said expenses were granted is not mentioned by the lower Tribunal. So also, when the evidence of P.W.1 does not support any claim for disability. No disability certificate is granted. Hence, granting of compensation towards disability is also not proper. 8. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was in hospital for about two weeks and he was operated and has got a grievous injury and rest was advised for three months. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the material on record, I say that the ends of justice would meet, if Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five only) is granted instead of Rs.1,15,000/-. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________ 04-11-2011 kvr