THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2077 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order dated 12.10.2006 in O.P.No.804 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Adilabad by the insurance company questioning the liability. The petition was filed by the claimant stating that on 29.04.2000 when he was going on a motorcycle near Vanalpad bridge, a jeep bearing No.MH29B-1639 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner’s motorcycle, as a result of which the petitioner received multiple injuries and was treated in a private hospital and spent money for treatment. The 1st respondent is the driver, 2nd respondent is the owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurance company and they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The 3rd respondent, who is the appellant herein, contended that the jeep was not involved in the incident and there was a collision between the petitioner’s motorcycle and the jeep of respondents 1 and 2 and initially the case was referred as a falsity and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal came to the conclusion that the jeep was involved in the accident and granted a compensation of Rs.62,500/-. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the case was originally referred to as false by the police, but somehow the driver of the jeep was pressed into service and he himself voluntarily appeared before the Court and he was made to admit the case and, therefore, he was convicted as the jeep was involved in the incident. This aspect was considered by the lower Tribunal and it has taken into consideration the admission made by the driver of the vehicle and also the investigation done by the police. Since there is not of much material to contradict this evidence except the earlier reference said to have been made by the police as the case being a falsity. Therefore, when the lower Tribunal has appreciated the evidence, I do not find that the lower Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion about the involvement of the jeep. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the assessment of the compensation by the lower Tribunal is not correct and relied on a decision reported by this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Tadepalligudem v. Peeka Naga Raju[1], wherein it is held that the Tribunal has to consider only suffering due to the totality of the injuries suffered by the claimant. The lower Tribunal has considered that the petitioner has received three fractures and for each of the fracture a sum of Rs.15,000/- was granted. This approach of the lower Tribunal is not correct as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, taking into consideration, I feel the ends of justice would meet, if a compensation of Rs.25,000/- is granted as compensation for pain and suffering for all the injuries and consequently the order of the lower Tribunal is modified and it is confined to a sum of Rs.42,500/- (Rupees forty two thousand and five hundred only). After satisfying the above order of compensation, if any amount is lying to the credit of the Original Petition, the insurance company can withdraw the same. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 15-09-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2077 of 2011 DATE: 15-09-2011 MR [1] 2011 (3) ALD 438 (AP)