THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A. NO. 3456 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved against the judgment and decree in O.P.No. 765 of 1999 dated 31.3.2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Addl. District Judge, Adilabad, the present C.M.A. is filed mainly urging that for the best reasons known to the tribunal below granted compensation without any basis, the compensation and the rate of interest granted by the tribunal below is unjust. Now the point for consideration is whether the judgment of the tribunal below is sustainable. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. One Sri Rudraveni Ramulu filed O.P.No. 765 of 1999 claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident of 11.6.1998. The learned appellant counsel did not disputed the accident and also its liability. It is only urged that the compensation awarded by the tribunal below is not on proper lines. As seen from the impugned Order except the injured, none others were examined on behalf of the claimant. Ex.A-1 to A-8 are the documents on which the tribunal below placed reliance while granting compensation. Ex.A-3 is Discharge summary, and Ex.A-2 is the injury certificate. Ex.A-2 reads that the injured sustained only one grievous injury. There is no medical evidence that the injured was hospitalized and was given treatment. However, in view of the discharge summary under Ex.A-3, the injured was admitted in the hospital and later he was discharged from the hospital with a direction to follow up action medically. While taking into consideration the gravity of the injury as noted in Exs.A-2 and A-3 granting of Rs. 20,000/- towards the grievous injury in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand is just and reasonable, but not Rs. 30,000/- as granted by the tribunal below as the finding of the tribunal below granting a sum of Rs. 30,000/- is without any basis and without any discussion on the injury certificate Ex.A-2. Admittedly, the injured is R.M.P. Doctor. Therefore, in any view of the matter granting of Rs. 20,000/- towards the grievous injury is quite just and reasonable. The tribunal below granted an amount of Rs. 10,523/- towards medical expenses as per Exs.A-5 and A-6 on careful scrutiny an amount of Rs. 2,023/- and Rs. 435/- were claimed under two medical bills issued by a private medical shop. The other bunch of bills filed in support of the claim are issued by the NIMS Pharmacy. Therefore, the two bills for Rs. 2,023/- and for Rs. 435/- are not genuine and the said claim needs no consideration. Therefore, after deducting an amount of Rs. 8,000/- is granted towards the medical expenses against the awarded sum of Rs. 10,523/- granted by the tribunal below. Regarding the transportation to the hospital and extra nourishment, the tribunal below granted a sum of Rs. 10,000/- without any evidence on record and the same is disallowed. However, granting of Rs. 5,000/- towards the pain and suffering is just and reasonable. The tribunal below also granted a sum of Rs. 18,000/- towards the loss of earnings, whereas in the evidence of P.W-1 he stated that due to accident he was deprived of his income as R.M.P. Doctor for six months. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards loss of earnings instead of Rs. 18,000/- granted by the tribunal below. With this modification, the C.M.A. is partly allowed. Since the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal below is reduced in the C.M.A., the interest granted by the tribunal below @ 9% is left unchanged having regard to the circumstances of the case on hand. In the result, the C.M.A. is partly allowed. In total a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is granted against the compensation of Rs. 73,523/- granted by the tribunal below. ___________________ 17.3.2011 CHV