THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A.No.2085 OF 2003 AND M.A.C.M.A.NO. 3415 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT:- Both the appeals arise out of a common award in O.P.No.959 of 1998 on the file of the court of Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Ranga Reddy. The claimant is the appellant in C.M.A.No.2085 of 2003 whereas the Insurance Company is the appellant in other appeal. According to the claim of the claimant, on 22-07-1996 when he stopped the bus bearing No.AP 9Z 7278 while going from Hyderabad to Bombay at Indapur, one Bus bearing No.KA 01 A 9972 came in a opposite direction and hit the bus, as a result of which, the he received multiple injuries and suffered disability. He is said to be a driver of RTC Bus. He claimed compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle; second respondent is the Insurance Company and third respondent is the employer of the petitioner. The first respondent remained ex parte. The second respondent denied the liability whereas the third respondent has contended that the claim of the petitioner is not tenable and the nature of the incident and nature of the injuries received by the petitioner are to be proved. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record granted a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeals are filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT:- So far as the nature of the incident and nature of the treatment taken by the petitioner is concerned there is not of much dispute. In fact, the Insurance Company also could not adduce any evidence to show that there is no liability for the driver of the bus. The counsel for the claimant contends that the lower Tribunal has not given any amount towards medical expenses and also disability; whereas the counsel for the Insurance Company contends that the lower Tribunal has unduly granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of salary when in fact there is no proof the same. Evidently, though the petitioner has claimed that he was having some disability, the evidence of PW.2 was taken into consideration and the Tribunal found that 25% disability opined by PW.2 has not put any inconvenience to the earning capacity of the petitioner as he did not lose his employment and he continued to be in employment of the RTC. Therefore, while taking into consideration the nature of the grievous injuries, the amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering cannot be said intended for that. As can be seen from Ex.A-6 there are only four injuries. Ex.A-8 discharge sheet shows that there is fracture of both bones of right leg and tibia and the petitioner is said to be in hospital from 30-07-1996 to 20-10-1996. Therefore, evidently, the Tribunal has kept in mind the temporary disability if at all that has been caused to the petitioner and granted a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering and also the disability. It cannot therefore be said that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the compensation for disability. So far as the medical expenses are concerned, evidently, no bills have been filed by the petitioner and he said to have been treated at RTC hospital and consequently the rejection of the claim on that count cannot be faulted. Sofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that granting of a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of salary is concerned, according to him, the petitioner was in hospital only for a period of three months and loss of income for 21 months is not proved. But, however, the lower court was inclined to rely upon Ex.A-13-the leave certificate, showing that he was on leave for 21 months. It would have been better had the petitioner examined the concerned officer to prove the above fact. But, however, on a question of fact accepted by lower Tribunal I do not find there is any valid reason to come to a different conclusion. Evidently, there is said to be no credit of Earned Leave and the leave which he has availed is said to be on the basis of Loss of Pay. Therefore, the award of the lower Tribunal on any counts cannot be interfered and the amount of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Hence, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both appeals are dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 16-12-2011 TSNR