THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO. 1698 OF 2011 JUDGMENT:- The appeal is filed, against the order in O.P.No.110 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, by the Insurance Company questioning the compensation awarded in the above O.P. The claimant/petitioner is said to have received injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 21-03-2002 at about 11.30 P.M when he was going on a Scooter bearing No.AP.36.D 8653. At that time when he reached Ramanthapur main road, a lorry bearing No.AHT 8616 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter, as a result of which, he fell down and received multiple injuries. The appellant herein is the Insurance Company and it pleaded that the accident occurred due to the fault of the claimant and further put the petitioner to strict proof of the nature of injuries; nature of the treatment and also the disability claimed by him. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record found that the incident was due to the fault of the driver of the lorry and consequently awarded a compensation of Rs.1,05,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed and an application under Section.170-B of the Motor Vehicles Act was allowed in the lower court and therefore the appellant can be permitted to challenge the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no material about the disability and the evidence of PW.2 cannot be taken into consideration and the grant of medical expenses is also on higher side. As can be seen from the evidence on record, the petitioner is said to have suffered two fractures to the pelvis and according to the evidence of pW.2 there was a disability. He did not give any disability certificate but he gave only an opinion about the disability. The claimant was evidently a carpenter and for the shorter period also there will be a temporary disability in discharge of his duties. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and also a sum of Rs.10,000/- for skin grafting after the operation; a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards medical expenses though the bills are shown for Rs.2,300/-. It is to be noted that medical expenses does not mean the actual of the medicines, which includes the attendance and also the extra nourishment and other incidental care to be taken when a person is hospitalised. Taking into consideration the nature of the fractures, it must have detained him in hospital or at the house at least for a period of six weeks and for that period, treatment and medicines are required. Therefore, the grant of medical expenses @ 10,000/- cannot be said to be excessive. Further more, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was granted for transport and other expenses and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was granted towards disability. Though the disability may not be proved to have been permanent disability but it is a partial disability affecting the earnings of the petitioner and consequently there will be a loss of earnings for the period he was confined for treatment and subsequently even if the earning is taken as minimum of Rs.4000/- per month, for a period of six months the loss of his earnings will come to Rs.24,000/- due to the injuries. Therefore, taking any view of the matter the compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. However, the Tribunal has granted interest @ 9% and in view of the present settled law the interest is reduced to 7.5%. With the above modification with regard to interest, the appeal is allowed. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 19-08-2011 TSNR