THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2865 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order dated 04.02.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.213 of 2003 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad questioning the quantum of compensation. A claim was made for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries received in a motor accident on 17.07.2003 when the petitioner was proceeding on his motorcycle splendor bearing No.AP- 28-AG-3615, a private bus bearing No.AP-09-X-1441 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner’s motorcycle, as a result of which, he received multiple injuries and treated in hospital and suffered disability. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent filed counter putting the petitioner to strict proof of earnings of the petitioner, nature of the injuries and also the claim of disability. The claim of Rs.4,00,000/- for medical expenses for his treatment is also disputed and there was no valid policy by the date of incident. The lower Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, has granted a compensation of Rs.1,30,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT: So far as the nature of the incident and its cause is concerned, there is no dispute. According to the petitioner, he sustained commuted fracture of both bones of right forearm and left scapula and also fracture of left zygoma and other injuries. He claims to have been treated in hospital and two surgeries were conducted. The lower Tribunal has depended upon the wound certificate Ex.A-3, which goes to show that the petitioner sustained two simple injuries and two grievous injuries. The petitioner is said to have undergone treatment and filed Exs.A-5 to A-8 medical bills only to a tune of Rs.36,170/-. A steel rod is said to have been inserted. The petitioner is said to have bedridden for three months. The lower Tribunal has granted Rs.60,000/- towards injuries, Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of income. Evidently, though the medical bills are for a sum of Rs.36,170/- as per the consolidated discharge bill Ex.A-6, the lower Tribunal has granted Rs.50,000/-. So also only two fractures and two simple injuries are there and the lower Tribunal has granted Rs.60,000/- towards the injuries, which is, evidently, on a higher side. The lower Tribunal has also granted a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of income, taking into consideration that he is said to have been bedridden. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant that the petitioner has been removed from the job due to his injuries is not proved. Therefore, the total earnings is not proved by any other evidence. The disability is also not proved by any certificate issued by the competent board. Taking into consideration, the nature of the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and also the nature of the injuries, it is quite clear that the lower Tribunal has granted the compensation reasonably and not excessive and, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 24-11-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2865 of 2011 DATE: 24-11-2011 MR