HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.749 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the judgment dated 16-12-2005 passed in O.P.No.580 of 2003 by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-XXI Addl. Chief Judge, Redhills, Nampally (for short Tribunal), the present C.M.A is filed urging that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.15,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering for the injuries suffered by the claimant. The compensation granted towards the grievous injuries together with interest at 7.5% per annum is highly unreasonable. 2. The counsel for respondent while submitting arguments urged that the Tribunal while segregating the injuries, granted compensation towards pain and suffering and there is no error in granting the said compensation and the interest granted by the Tribunal is also reasonable. 3. Now the point for consideration is, whether the judgment of the Tribunal is sustainable. 4. As seen from the judgment of the Tribunal, P.W.4-Dr B.V.Rama Raju was examined. He treated the injured and found rupture of urinary passage injury, preliminary procedure urinary diversion surgery was done as definitive surgery was not possible for urinary passage injury. After injured was discharged from the hospital, they have admitted him again and performed definitive final surgery and repaired urinary passage. Thereafter periodical check ups were done to the injured. Ex.A.8 is the discharge summary of the injured issued by Kamineni Hospitals which speaks about clinical history and treatment provided to the petitioner. P.W.1 was also treated with surgery of perennial urethra plasty operation and same was evidenced by Ex- A.11. Again he was treated of Cychoscopy und general anesthesia. Thereafter periodical treatments were given to him. Therefore by taking into consideration the treatment provided to P.W.1 for the injuries sustained by him, any amount of compensation would not equate the sufferings of the injured, as he being at the teenage of 19 years that too studying Engineering course. Therefore, granting a total compensation of Rs.55,000/- for the aforesaid injuries is just and reasonable and I see no ground to set aside the finding of the Tribunal, as the injuries sustained by P.W.1 are very grievous in nature and will cause hindrance to his regular day to day life. In view of injuries and suffering of the injured, aged of 19 years, as observed by me in the earlier para of my judgment, I see no justification to reduce interest from 7.5% to 6% as ordered in the impugned order. Accordingly, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO 15th March, 2011 VJL