THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.NO.97 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 12.03.2007, in M.V.O.P.No.484 of 2005 on the file of the MACT-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The said claim application filed by the respondent herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.90,217/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the APSRTC. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the records. The respondent herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19/20.04.2004. According to the claimant, on that night, at about 12.10 am, when the claimant was standing by the side of his scooter, which was parked by the side of Chittoor-Piler main road, one RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 3416 driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed against the scooter and the injured sustained fracture of right hand, besides other simple injuries and that he was taken to the Government Hospital, Pakala and from there, he was shifted to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati, for treatment. It was further pleaded that the injured was aged about 31 years and was doing business in cement, steel and fertilizers and was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per annum, besides cultivating the lands and getting Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from agriculture. A case in crime No.51 of 2004 was registered by the Station House Officer, Pakala Police Station, against the driver of the bus. The appellant herein-APSRTC filed counter denying the liability to pay the compensation. During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the claimant. R.W.1 was examined on behalf of the RTC and no documentary evidence was adduced on their behalf. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal found that the driver of the bus drove it in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The said finding is not seriously challenged in this appeal. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.90,217/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the RTC preferred this appeal mainly questioning the quantum of compensation. As seen from the material available on record, the claimant sustained fracture of right humerus, which is a grievous injury and three other abrasions, which are simple injuries and that he was admitted in the hospital on 20.04.2004 and was discharged on 27.04.2004 and during the said period, nailing of humerus was done on 24.04.2004. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- for the grievous injury of fracture and Rs.2,000/- each for three simple injuries towards pain and suffering. As per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, only a sum of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded for grievous injury and Rs.1,000/- each for the simple injuries. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.8,000/- only towards pain and suffering. The claimant pleaded that he spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses, but he has filed Ex.A4-bunch of 25 medical bills for Rs.48,258/-, Ex.A5-bill for repairs of the scooter for Rs.10,534/- and Ex.A6-bunch of five transport bills for Rs.5,425/-. The claimant is, therefore, entitled to the said amount of Rs.64,217/-, which was awarded by the Tribunal based on the bills, Exs.A4 to A6. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that the injuries resulted in any permanent disability and no disability certificate is filed. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of earning capacity. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.72,217/- (i.e., Rs.64,217/- + Rs.8,000/-). The claimant is entitled to a further sum of Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment, having regard to the fact that he was in the hospital for a period of one week. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.75,217/-, which is rounded to Rs.75,000/-, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition. The impugned award is modified to the effect mentioned above. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ (G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J) 3rd November 2011 RRB