IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN :PRESENT:4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. S. APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.124 OF 2008 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited, rep. by its Manager P.V.V. Subrahamnaym ..... APPELLANT AND Sudagani Ramulu and another .…. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the decree and award dated 10-09-2007 passed in O.P.No.2160 of 2004 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Judge (F.T.C.), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, present M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the appellant-insurance company urging that granting of Rs.98,000/- towards compensation to the claimants is highly excess when there is no permanent disability and therefore, the finding of the lower Court is not sustainable. Now the point for consideration is whether the finding of the lower Court granting compensation to the petitioner is sustainable. POINT:- The lower Court granted compensation basing on the evidence of PW-3 the Doctor who treated the injured. In the present case on hand injured is a minor. PW-1 is the guardian who filed this petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,48,000/- under different heads. According to PW-1 minor was injured, sustained fractures in the accident and was treated in different occasions in Gandhi hospital during the years 1996 to 2004 and that the injured/PW-2 was aged about 15 years as on 03-04-2002 and he was in-patient in Gandhi Hospital. The evidence of PW-3 is paramount importance while deciding the gravity of the injuries sustained by the injured in this case. According to PW-3, he is Professor in Orthopedic in Gandhi Hospital from 1996 to 2004 and the patient was admitted in the said hospital on 03-04-2002 with the following injuries: 1. Fracture shaft femur middle third, which was communuted (broken pieces). 2. Fracture both bones right leg junction middle and lower third. The patient was operated for fixed fracture shaft femur with “K” Nail and POP casing was given for the fracture both bones right side leg. The injured was discharged on 24-04-2002 and second time he was admitted in the hospital for removal of the nail on 12- 11-2003. A surgery for removal of nail was done and was discharged on 29-11-2003 and on 31-07-2007 he made clinical examination and took x-ray of both right thigh and right leg and found fractures were united but there is a wasting of the thigh muscles and leg muscles and there is instability in the right knee joint. The injured can do routine work but he cannot do hard work and percentage of disability assessed by him is 20% is without any justification and which cannot be taken into consideration. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that there is a Medical Board constituted in referred hospital which is competent to assess the disability of the injured person. The evidence of PW-3, who assessed the disability of the injured about 20% is without any justification and which cannot be taken into consideration. As seen from the occupation of PW-3 he is Professor in Orthopedic and worked in Gandhi Hospital for couple of years and he assessed the disability on examining the patient as he has given treatment while he was working as Professor in Orthopedic, Gandhi Hospital. In view of the specialization as Professor the disability assessed by him may be taken into consideration while evaluating the evidence of the injured as well as the wound certificate issued to him. Unless the injuries are so grievous in nature the patient would not have undergone 3 surgeries before he was finally examined by PW-3. Even after finally examined the Doctor opined that the petitioner cannot do hard work and there is instability in right knee joint. Admittedly, the injured is a student aged about 15 years. In view of the disability and instability in the right knee joint he cannot run and he is deprived of participating in any sports. Having regard to the gravity of injuries and evidence on record coupled with documentary evidence Exs.A-5, A-7 and A-8 the amount granted by the lower Court is most reasonable and justified. Therefore, I see no grounds to set aside the findings of the lower Court. Accordingly, the judgment of the lower Court is sustainable. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J March 14, 2011 Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. S. APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.124 OF 2008 March 14, 2011