HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.3371 OF 2011 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.11318 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the order in O.P.No.660 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, questioning the quantum of compensation. 2. A claim for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- was made for the injuries received by the claimant in a motor accident. 3. Parties are referred as arrayed in the lower Tribunal. 4. According to the case of the petitioner, on 16.09.1997 when the petitioner was going on a scooter bearing No.AP 22 7643, the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 28 T 5387 driver by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter, as a result of which, the petitioner received multiple injuries. Respondent No.1 is the driver and respondent No.2 is owner of the auto rickshaw. Respondent No.3 is Insurance Company. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. Respondent No.3 filed a counter denying the averments in the petition, putting the petitioner to strict proof of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, nature of injuries received by the petitioner and the medical expenses incurred by him. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal below has granted a compensation of Rs.1,23,880/-. Aggrieved by that, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. Whereas being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, cross objections were filed by the petitioner. 5. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is legal and sustainable? 6. POINT: So far as the nature of injuries and also the nature of the accident are concerned, there is no dispute. Though an attempt was made in the grounds of appeal to show that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, there is no evidence on the side of the appellant-Insurance Company. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence and the investigation being done by the police supports the claim of the petitioner, there is no reason to disbelieve the cause of accident as held by the lower Tribunal. 7. So far as the nature of the injuries is concerned, the petitioner has claimed that he received fracture to right upper shaft femur and also simple injuries to right jaw and upper cheek. He claims to have been treated in Gandhi Hospital and earlier given first aid at Mahabubnagar Government Hospital. He filed Ex.A.2-Medical Certificate and also X-ray films. He also filed discharge summary from Gandhi hospital. In the cross-examination, it was suggested that there was no expenditure for treatment and the bills filed by him are fabricated. The nature of the injuries received by him is not seriously disputed. The evidence of PW.3 is that he examined the petitioner on 12.01.2005 and noticed 40% disability and issued disability certificate- Ex.A.3. Evidently, in this case, the incident has happened in 1997 and the disability certificate was given by PW.3 in the year, 2005. He did not even refer to the cause of the injuries or relating to any earlier accident. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the disability certificate cannot be taken into consideration. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the doctor, who treated the petitioner was not examined. As can be seen from the award of the Tribunal, it has calculated the compensation taking into consideration the disability, the earning capacity and applying the multiplier. It has also accepted the medical expenses of Rs.30,000/-. The total compensation awarded was Rs.1,23,880/-. 8. Though the method adopted by the lower Tribunal does not appear to be correct, however, as there is no separate component of compensation for pain and suffering etc., and as the amount of compensation appears to be reasonable and just, I feel that it cannot be interfered with as the accident is of the year, 1997 and the award was passed in the year, 2005. The age of the injured was taken into consideration and the loss of earning capacity was also determined. Therefore, there are no merits either in the appeal or in the cross- objections filed by the claimant since the compensation, however is not excessive, can be said to be reasonable. 9. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The delay in re-presenting the cross-objections is condoned and cross-objections are rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:23.12.2011 INL