THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.426 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 19.11.2007, in O.P.No.379 of 2005 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur, wherein the said claim application filed by the petitioner herein, was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.3,27,500/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.02.2005. According to the claimant, on that day, when he was proceeding on his Hero Honda motor cycle from Anaparthi to Kadiyam at about 1.15 p.m. near fish rearing center of Kadiyam village, a lorry bearing No.AP 5U 9966, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle in the opposite direction as a result of which claimant sustained pre-fracture injuries on his right leg and fracture of right hand besides other injuries. He was admitted in a private hospital of Dr.K.Umamaheswara Rao at Guntur, where he underwent surgery for the right hand and right leg. It is further pleaded that the claimant was aged 24 years and was working as a Lecturer in Mathematics in GBR degree college, Anaparthi and was earning Rs.10,033/- per month. 4. The owner of the offending vehicle-lorry remained ex parte. The insurer of the lorry filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry before the Tribunal, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked on behalf of the claimant. R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the insurer. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The said finding has become final as no appeal is filed by the insurer. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,27,500/- with interest @ 7 % p.a. from the date of the petition. Not satisfied with the award, claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal failed to award any compensation for the permanent disability sustained by the claimant though the evidence on record established that the injuries resulted in permanent disability of 25 to 30 %. 8. It is not disputed that the claimant was aged 24 years and was working as Lecturer in GBR degree college, Anaparthi. Though the claimant filed service certificate-Ex.A6, the same was not duly proved as none connected with the issuance of the said certificate was examined. The Tribunal has therefore held that though the evidence on record shows that the claimant was working as Lecturer, he failed to establish that he was earning Rs.10,033/- per month. The Tribunal has therefore taken the income of the claimant at Rs.5000/- as the claimant was only an Adhoc lecturer and awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income for a period of six months. The evidence on record, no doubt, shows that the injuries have resulted in shortening of leg by half inch and it was a permanent disability to an extent of 25 to 30%. 9. P.W.2-doctor, who treated the claimant, issued the disability certificate-Ex.A8, wherein it is stated that the claimant is having 25 to 30% physical disability. However, it is to be noted that there is nothing on record to show that the said disability has in any way affected the continuation of the employment by the claimant as a lecturer. Even according to the claimant, he was working as a lecturer. He could have therefore rejoined his job and continued the employment with the college and earned the income as before notwithstanding the permanent disability. Thus, the question of the claimant suffering any loss of earning capacity on account of the permanent disability does not arise. In the absence of any such evidence to show that there was in fact any loss of earning capacity suffered by the claimant on account of the disability, the Tribunal was justified in not awarding any compensation towards loss of earning capacity. 10. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the grievous injuries, which can be taken as compensation for the loss of amenities on account of injuries and the resultant permanent disability of 25%. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering for the four fracture injuries, which is considered just and reasonable. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.17,226/- towards medical expenses at Life hospital and Rs.1,21,792/- towards medical expenses incurred at Sai Priya hospital. As per the medical bills produced under Exs.A4 and A5, the Tribunal has also awarded Rs.5000/- towards attendant charges and extra nourishment and Rs.3500/- towards transportation charges, which are all considered reasonable. Thus, the total amount of Rs.3,27,500/- awarded by the Tribunal represents on the whole just and adequate compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds for enhancement of the compensation as prayed for. The impugned award does not call for any interference of this Court. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 12th December, 2011 Tsy