THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.984 of 2003 and CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.46734 of 2003 Date: 26.08.2010 C.M.A.No.984 of 2003 : Between: The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. … Appellants and Smt. Malavath Lakshmi … Respondent CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.46734 of 2003 : Between: Smt. Malavath Lakshmi … Appellants and The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.984 of 2003 and CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.46734 of 2003 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard the learned Standing Counsel for appellant-A.P. State Road Transport Corporation as well as the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant. 2. Since both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objections arise out of the judgment and decree passed in the same O.P., they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 17.9.2002, in O.P.No.431 of 1998, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Court), Nizamabad District (for brevity “the Tribunal”) allowing the petition by awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor accident that occurred on 25.4.1998 at Bharathmatha Statue at Yellareddypally village, Nizamabad District, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus, bearing registration No.AP 9Z 4819, belonging to the Corporation, civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the Corporation and cross objections have been preferred by the claimant. 4. The appellants are Corporation and the respondent is the claimant-cross objector. 5. This is a case of injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident. The particulars regarding the accident and the aspect of negligence are not referred to since not in dispute. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, allowed the petition by awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. Challenging the quantum of compensation, the Corporation preferred the civil miscellaneous appeal and the claimant preferred the cross objections seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and justified. 7. From a perusal of the impugned judgment, it could be seen that P.W.2, the Orthopedic Surgeon, had deposed that the claimant sustained fracture of inferior pubic rami with contusional C.S. spine and issued Ex.A-6 certificate, assessing the permanent partial disability at 35%. He issued Ex.A-2 discharge ticket and Ex.C-1 is the case sheet. He also deposed that the claimant cannot do any labour work and cannot walk properly and the injuries mentioned in Ex.A-6 were corresponding to the injuries shown in Ex.A-2 and C-1. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal had rightly appreciated the evidence and the entire material on record in awarding a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation under different heads. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. Coming to the cross objections filed by the claimant, having regard to the facts and circumstances, I feel it inexpedient to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Tribunal and enhance the amount of compensation. 9. For the foregoing, I do not find any merit either in the civil miscellaneous appeal or in the cross-objections and the same are liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal and the cross objections are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 26.08.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.984 of 2003 and CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.46734 of 2003 26.08.2010 (Msr)