THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2054 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the award dated 14.07.2004 in O.P.No.869 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad questioning the quantum of compensation. The appellant, who is the claimant, filed a claim for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, which was enhanced from the original claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, for the injuries received by her in a motor accident on 18.03.2001 while she was going in a car along with her husband, a jeep bearing No.AP 12-A/8648, which was insured with the 2nd respondent- insurance company, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car, as a result of which the petitioner received fractures and multiple injuries. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent- insurance company filed counter disputing the nature of the incident, nature of the claim and quantum of compensation. After considering the material on record, the lower Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs2,00,000/-. Being not satisfied with it, the present appeal is filed. Now the point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT: So far as the cause of incident is concerned, there is not of much dispute. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the lower Tribunal has not considered that the appellant sustained fracture of left femur and there was a shortening of the leg and disability of 40%, which was deposed by P.W.2 and erred in considering the disability only at 30%. So also the medical expenses are said to have been incurred for more than Rs.1,40,000/- and the lower Tribunal has granted only Rs.50,000/- and consequently the award is to be interfered. It is also the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deduction cannot be made. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the disability certificate Ex.A-5 issued by P.W.2 is not proper and it should be given only by a doctor, who treated the petitioner. However, as can be seen from the award, the lower Tribunal has taken into consideration the contribution of the services of the petitioner as Rs.36,000/- per annum and taking her age, applied the multiplier ‘11’ and determined the compensation at 30% disability. I do not think that the way of approach determined by the lower Tribunal is incorrect. So far as the disability is concerned, as rightly found by the lower Tribunal, it was taken as a permanent disability and always it is left to the Tribunal to come to an opinion on the basis of evidence available on record about the percentage of disability. When a finding of fact was arrived at and the opinion of the Court is that the disability can be fixed at 30%, which cannot be said to be unreasonable. I do not think that the award passed by the lower Tribunal has to be faulted. The lower Tribunal has taken into consideration the discharge bill of Rs.47,785-40 paise, which is naturally the final bill and considered the quantum of medical expenses, which cannot be said to be on a lower side. The lower Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the transport expenditure and extra nourishment. The lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. The evidence adduced on record does not show that the opinion expressed by the lower Tribunal is erroneous. It is to be mentioned that the quantum of compensation granted by the injuries is only a substitute and it cannot be taken as a total benefit that can be given under the Act. The Court has to only consider the fairness and reasonableness of the award and when the quantum of compensation is neither low nor it ignores the material on record, an interference of the award is not called for. However, it is to be mentioned that the original claim was only for Rs.2,00,000/- and subsequently the claim was enhanced to Rs.4,00,000/-. There is nothing on record to show that the award of the lower Tribunal is not proper. Therefore, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the award of the lower Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J DATE: 14-12-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 2054 of 2011 DATE: 14-12-2011 MR