THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A C.M.A.No.2343 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The appellant-Insurance Company filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment, dated 05.06.2006, passed in O.P.No.508 of 2004 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXII Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows: On 15.11.2002 Shaik Ayyaz Ahmed, S. Balaji, K. Ravi Kumar, B. Srinivasulu and E.S.Anil Kumar, left Hyderabad to go to Shabari Malai in a Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 23-C-4279 and when they reached Ittikalapadu village on National High Way No.7 at about 1.00 AM i.e., on the intervening night of 15/16.11.2002, B. Srinivasulu, the driver of the said Sumo drove it in high speed and dashed against a lorry, which was coming in opposite direction, as a result of which, all the four persons died on the spot and the second respondent-claimant sustained injuries. The Police, Manapadu of Mahaboobnagar District registered a case in Crime No.76 of 2002 under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC and that after investigation, the police filed a final report stating that the case was abated since the driver of the TATA Sumo died in the accident. The claimant filed the above said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-payable by respondents 1 and 2 being owner and insurer of the crime vehicle. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte and respondent No.2 apposed the claim petition. 3. The Tribunal framed the necessary issues. On behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked. No evidence was adduced and no document was marked on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Sumo, awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the said quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-insurance company. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded higher compensation for pain and suffering without any evidence. 5. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of TATA Sumo at the time of accident. The dispute is with regard to the compensation of Rs.1,27,500/- awarded by the Tribunal for pain and suffering. In the accident, the petitioner sustained three fracture injuries, one head injury and multiple injuries. P.W.2-Doctor stated that because of the head injury, the claimant sustained disability of loss of memory, which is a permanent one. Though the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the said disability, it rightly declined to award compensation for future earnings in the absence of any material to prove the same. From a perusal of the award impugned, it is evident that though there is no sufficient material, the Tribunal awarded higher compensation to the claimant. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to reduce a sum of Rs.50,000/- from Rs.3,00,000/- and thereby the total compensation comes to Rs.2,50,000/-. The award of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. 6. With the above modification to the award of the Tribunal, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:08.07.2010 sj