THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3278 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. Challenging the quantum of compensation, awarded by the Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Adilabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), in O.P.No.830 of 2000, by order and decree, dated 31.03.2003, granting a sum of Rs.5,90,220/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner therein, in a road accident that occurred on 06.01.2000, the United India Assurance Company Limited, filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The method and manner in which the accident occurred and the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the accident are not in serious dispute, hence, I do not find any necessity to go into all those facts. The only question that falls for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the quantification of compensation by the Tribunal, in the circumstances of the case, is adequate or not? The claimant, admittedly, was an employee in Singareni Colleries Company Limited and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.5,790/-. In the said accident, he received two injuries. As could be seen from Ex.A-2-wound certificate, injury No.1 is a crush injury of the right leg with exposed bones of tibia and fibula and injury No.2 is swelling of the middle of the right thigh. Further, Ex.A-5 is the discharge card issued by Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, which shows that there was a fracture on the right leg due to crush injury reflecting tibia and fibula as well as fracture of right leg shaft femur. As a result of these injuries, the right leg of the claimant was amputated, in order to save his life, up to thigh level. The permanent disability was estimated to an extent of 70% as the amputation was up to thigh level. Though the disability was estimated at 70%, in fact, the permanent disability should be taken at 100% inasmuch as he was totally disabled from working as an employee in Singareni Colleries Limited. Therefore, though medically he was disabled only to an extent of 75%, in actual terms he was totally disabled and has to carry that disability all through his life with diminished earning capacity almost to a decimal level and also became a liability to the other members of the family. For the aforementioned reasons and also having regard to the facts and circumstances, I do not find any irregularity or irrationality in the assessment made by the Tribunal in quantifying the compensation. The appeal is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 07th October 2010 dr