THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 3419 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order dated 29.07.2005 in O.P.No.431 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet questioning quantum of compensation. The petitioner, who is the appellant herein, has filed a claim for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries received in a motor accident on 16.12.2000 at about 7.00 a.m. when he was going on his Hero Honda motorcycle, a lorry bearing No.AP-11-V-2444 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motorcycle, as a result of which he fell down and received fracture of both bones of left leg and other injuries. He claims to be a Head Master and he was on leave for nearly three months. The 1st respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the 2nd respondent is the insurance company, both of them are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition. The lower Tribunal, after considering the material on record, granted a compensation of Rs.67,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. The point for consideration is whether the compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT: So far as the cause of the incident and the insurance of the vehicle are concerned, there is no dispute. As can be seen from the material on record, the petitioner is said to have received one simple injury and also one grievous injury. The lower Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards pain and suffering. This appears to be on a lower side. The grievous injury is said to be to the both bones of left leg. Therefore, taking into consideration the above fact, the compensation for pain and suffering is fixed at Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner has claimed medical expenses to a tune of Rs.43,000/-, but the lower Tribunal has granted only Rs.20,000/-. When the lower Tribunal has not given any reason for the rejection of the other claims, I feel, in view of the nature of the treatment and hospitalization for long time, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount of Rs.43,000/-. However, the petitioner was granted a sum of Rs.9,000/- towards compensation for loss of income during the treatment period and also for loss of compensation in future to a tune of Rs.32,000/-. This composition of the compensation by the lower Tribunal is not correct. Since the petitioner is said to be a Head Master, it is for him to prove that whether he was on leave or on loss of pay. The compensation cannot be granted on structural formulae when the petitioner has fixed salary. Therefore, the above amount of compensation cannot be taken into consideration. However, it is quite clear that the petitioner has suffered 10% disability as opined by the District Medical Board and even if it is a temporary nature, it causes inconvenience. Therefore, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is granted towards temporary partial disability. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.88,000/- rounded off to Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand only). Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 16-12-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 3419 of 2011 DATE: 16-12-2011 MR