HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.3395 of 2011 Date: December 09, 2011 Between: Aitla Srinivas … Petitioner And 1. Syed Saheebulla & 3 others … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.3395 of 2011 O R D E R: This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P. No.719 of 2003 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, questioning the quantum of compensation. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, on 15.3.2003 when the petitioner was coming with electrical goods in the RTC bus and when the bus reached Garrepalli, a lorry bearing No.AIF 2323 was stationed in the middle of the road, as a result of which the driver of the bus drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry, as a result of which the petitioner and others have received injuries. The petitioner is said to have undergone treatment and suffered disability and spent money for medical treatment. The first respondent is said to be the driver and the second respondent is the owner of the lorry, the third respondent is the insurer of the lorry, whereas the 4th respondent is the owner of the bus. 3. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte and they have thrown the blame on the drivers of the opposite vehicles. The lower Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, has found that the driver of the lorry is held to be negligent of 75%, whereas the driver of the RTC bus is found to be negligent of 25%. Accordingly, the award was passed for a sum of Rs.2,48,000/-. 4. The insurance company or the RTC did not file any appeals. The claimant has filed this appeal contended that the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is not proper. 5. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? 6. Point: As can be seen from the evidence of the petitioner and also the medical evidence, the petitioner is said to have received fracture to both bones of left leg, fracture to right leg and an injury to left foot. He is said to have treated in different hospitals and the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 discloses the nature of the treatment and also the disability suffered by the petitioner. Taking this aspect into consideration, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.70,000/- for pain and suffering which is evidently more than the reasonable amount. Whatever medical bills and transport charges were claimed to an extent of nearly Rs.50,000/- was granted by the lower Tribunal. An amount of Rs.5,000/- was granted towards extra nourishment, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of future amenities, Rs.57,000/- for loss of earnings and a sum of Rs.35,000/- was awarded for future plastic surgery. Therefore, the lower Tribunal has granted the compensation reasonably if not high on all aspects and the award does not suffer from any infirmity and I do not find any reasons to enhance the compensation. The point is answered accordingly. 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J. Date: December 09, 2011. BSB