THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.3374 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved against the order and decree dated 27.05.2003 in O.P.No.414 of 2000 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, the appellants- respondents filed the present appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The appellants herein are the respondents in the main O.P. On 02.09.1998 the respondent-claimant along with his wife and son was travelling on a motor cycle bearing No.AP-25-E-1010 from Banswada towards Nizamabad. The respondent was driving his motor cycle very slowly and on the side of the road and at about 1.00 p.m. when the vehicle reached the outskirts of Nusrullabad, an RTC bus bearing No.10-Z-3086 came from opposite direction driven by its driver with a high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle of the respondent, due to which the respondent, his wife and son fell down and the bus ran over the respondent, whereby the respondent sustained multiple fracture to his right leg and grievous injuries to right forearm, and injuries all over the body. The wife and son of the respondent also sustained injuries. Immediately, after the accident, they were shifted to the Government Hospital, Nizamabad, and treated as inpatients. Before the court below, the respondents filed counter denying all the allegations made in the petition. The learned counsel for the appellants-respondents urged that the order of the lower court granting compensation with fancy figure of Rs.1,40,000/- against two grievous injuries is excessive and arbitrary. It is further urged that the lower Court granted Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses though the bills purported to be for Rs.20,000/-, which is erroneous. Now the point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower court is sustainable. In the present case on hand, the manner in which the accident occurred is not disputed. Exs.A.1 and A.2 clearly read that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus. The present appeal is questioning the quantum of compensation payable by the respondents. In the evidence of injured as P.W.1, he deposed that he sustained fractures to right leg, multiple fractures to right forearm, multiple and grievous injuries on other parts of the body and was treated as inpatient at Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad, and Pragathi Hospital, Nizamabad, and underwent four operations and spent nearly Rs.1,50,000/- towards medicines. P.W.2 Dr. L. Ramulu, an Orthopaedic Surgeon was examined. According to him, the injured sustained 60% permanent partial disability. P.W.2 is not the person, who treated the injured in the Government Hospital. A perusal of the wound certificate-Ex.A.3 issued by Head Quarters, Nizamabad, shows that the respondent herein sustained as many as two fractures and one simple injury. More over, he was treated as inpatient from 02.09.1998 to 30.09.1998, and he was referred to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, for further treatment. The fact remains that as on the date when he was referred to the Gandhi Hospital at Secunderabad, the respondent sustained only two fractures and one simple injury. When the respondent was referred to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, for further treatment, the reason for his approach to Pragathi Hospital at Nizamabad is not explained. The Doctor in Pragrathi Hospital, under whose treatment, the respondent underwent surgery was not examined. In the absence of examining the doctor, who conducted the alleged four operations, the plea of the injured that he underwent four surgeries cannot be believed.. The learned Judge simply granted Rs.1,40,000/- as compensation to the respondent in lump sum without assigning the reasons in detail. It is obvious and in normal course the amount of compensation awarded to the victims should be noted with due evidence and with reasonable finding. The lower Court did not assign the reasons in arriving the figure of Rs.1,40,000/- for granting compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- granted without assigning any reasons warrants reduction of the same while taking into consideration the gravity of the injuries. Admittedly, there are two fractures to right leg and one simple injury to right fore arm. Viewed from any angle, granting of Rs.30,000/- to each fracture and Rs.3,000/- to the simple injury is just and reasonable since it is mentioned in the order and as per the evidence of P.W.2 that there is permanent partial disability of 60% though it is not full proof evidence. Having regard to the evidence on record, the amount of compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- is reduced to Rs.63,000/-, granting interest at the rate of 7% instead 19% per annum. The remaining findings of the lower Court shall hold good. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. ______________ K.S.APPA RAO,J 10th February 2011 bud