IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN MACMA No.2433 of 2006 Between: APSRTC, Reptd., by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. … Appellant/respondent. And: Lakavath Veeranna. … Respondent/Petitioner. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Thota Gopinath for Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy. Counsel for the Respondent: None. This Court made the following: JUDGMENT:- This Appeal arises out of award, dated 1-9-2006, in MVOP No.55 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Warangal (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the said MVOP. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the Corporation”) is the appellant in this appeal. The respondent, who is the driver of DCM van met with an accident when the van driven by him was hit by bus bearing registration No.AP-10Z-1- 2517 belonging to the Corporation. The respondent suffered fractures of right femur and right tibia apart from lacerations on the left and right legs. The respondent, therefore, filed the said O.P., before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation under various heads. The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence available on record, found that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said bus of the Corporation. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal analyzed the evidence on record, which includes the testimony of PW.2, the Doctor who treated the respondent and gave Ex.A.3 injury certificate. The respondent also filed Ex.A.4 original discharge card; Ex.A.8 original second time discharge card; Ex.A.10 bunch of medical bills; and Ex.A.11 X-rays. According to the evidence of PW.2, the two injuries, viz., fractures of right femur and right tibia, are grievous in nature and that the respondent was operated for fracture of right femur on 14-9-2004 by inter-locking nail, and fracture of right tibia was treated conservatively by plaster of paris. As no contradictory evidence was placed by the Corporation, the Tribunal has accepted the evidence of PW.2, which was corroborated by the medical record. The Tribunal quantified the damages as under: It has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings for the period during which the respondent has taken treatment as against the claim of Rs.18,000/-. It also awarded Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment as against the claim of Rs.60,000/-. Further, it has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for 10% disability suffered by the respondent. Though the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that award of compensation on the above heads are on higher side, in my opinion, on the basis of the evidence produced by the respondent, the Tribunal was justified in awarding the aforementioned amounts under each of the heads referred to above. As two, out of the four injuries, suffered by the respondent are grievous in nature, he has undergone surgery and was hospitalized at least for a period of 11 days; the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation towards medical expenditure, pain and suffering and extra nourishment. Even the sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for loss of future earnings, having regard to the 10% disability suffered by the respondent, cannot be said to be unreasonable. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. The MVCMA is accordingly dismissed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:15-02-2010 MNR