HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1987 of 2008 Date: 08-7-2011 Between The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Sangareddy, Medak district … Appellant/Respondent and Nalla Venkataiah @ Venkatesh … Respondent/Petitioner HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1987 of 2008 Judgment: Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28-02-2008 in O.P.No.281 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Medak, FAC of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Siddipet, Medak district the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (‘the Corporation’ for short). 2. The appellant herein is the respondent-Corporation in O.P.No.281 of 2006 before the tribunal below. The respondent- claimant filed the said O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 31-3-2006. The tribunal below, while assessing the evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under all heads. Being aggrieved, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the Corporation. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Corporation mainly urged that the tribunal below awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, which is erroneous and deserves to be modified. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent-claimant draws the attention of this Court to the petition M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.4820 of 2010 filed by the petitioner seeking permission to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,76,594/- for purchasing an artificial limb worth about Rs.1,73,800/-. Therefore, the finding of the tribunal below granting compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is sustainable and in any view of the matter, it is not exorbitant. 5. Now, the point for consideration is -- whether the judgment of the tribunal below is sustainable ? 6 . Point:- The injured is aged 21 years as on the date of accident. Admittedly, he is an agriculturist besides doing business. He laid the petition for claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that occurred on 31-3-2006. In proof of the injuries, he filed Ex.A-4 wound certificate, wherein it shows that the petitioner sustained grievous injury. 7. Ex.A-7 discharge card issued by Gandhi Hospital also reads that the injured was in the hospital from 01-4-2006 to 19-4-2006 and underwent operation. The discharge card further reads that the petitioner had grade-III compound comminuted super-condylor fracture of femur with loss of bone fragments with no distal vasculation above knee amputation done. 8. Therefore, as per the said certificates issued by the doctors at Gandhi Hospital, the petitioner had sustained compound comminuted fracture of super-condylor right femur and above knee amputation was done. With this amputation the petitioner being 24 years of age and an agriculturist, cannot discharge his normal duties and he has to depend on someone in day to day life. The amputation cannot be compensated in terms of money. To show bona fides the petitioner also made the aforesaid miscellaneous petition before this Court seeking permission to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,76,594/- for purchasing an artificial limb, which costs Rs.1,73,800/-. 9. Therefore, while taking into consideration the gravity of the injuries and the finding of the tribunal below and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, granting of total claim of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation by the tribunal below is quite reasonable in any view of the matter. Hence, I see no grounds to interfere with the findings of the tribunal below and accordingly, the same are confirmed. 10. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned judgment passed by the tribunal below. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 08th July, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1987 of 2008 08th July, 2011.