IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE FIFTH (5TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.2362 of 2009 Between: Dannamaneni Anasurya … Appellant And: Borru Malladri & another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.2362 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.09.2007 in OP No.655 of 2005 on the file of the MACT cum IV Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the said claim application filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was allowed in part, granting compensation of Rs.69,500/-. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurer. Perused the record. 3. The appellant herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.01.2005. According to the appellant, on that day, she was proceeding in Maruti Zen car bearing No.AP 36 G 4959 from Hanamkonda to Hyderabad and after crossing Ghanpur, another maruthi car bearing No.AP 29-A 8930 came in the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant’s car, resulting in fracture of right orbit, fracture of right femur and fracture of right fore head, besides other injuries and that she was shifted to Rohini Medi Care Hospital, Warangal and from there she was shifted to Mahavir Hospital, Hyderabad, where she under went surgery for insertion of plate and screws and that she was discharged on 02.02.2005. A case in Cr.No.7 of 2005 was registered against the driver of the offending maruthi car. It is further pleaded that the appellant was aged 65 years and was doing tailoring work and earning Rs.3000/- p.m. 4. The first respondent-owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent-insurer filed counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry before the Tribunal, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked on behalf of the appellant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the insurer but Ex.B.1 copy of policy was marked. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the maruthi car by its driver and the said finding is not challenged by way of any appeal by the insurer. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.69,500/-. Not satisfied with the same, the claimant filed the present appeal. 6. As per the medical evidence on record, the claimant sustained two fracture injuries i.e., fracture of right orbit and fracture of left femur and simple injury of laceration on the fore head and that she under went treatment initially at Rohini Medi Care hospital, Warangal and later at Mahavir Hospital, Hyderabad as inpatient for a total period of about one week. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.1,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.1,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.3,750/- towards loss of past earnings, Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses covered by medical bills and Rs.18,750/- towards 25% permanent disability, making up a total of Rs.69,500/-. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the amount awarded towards transport charges and extra nourishment at Rs.1,000/- is meager and no amount is awarded towards attendant charges. It is to be noted that though there is no proof of income, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,750/- towards loss of past income for a period of three months. Further, though the contents of Ex.A.7 disability certificate are not proved by examining the doctor, who issued the said certificate, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.18,750/- towards permanent disability to the extent of 25%. However, as the insurance company has not preferred any appeal questioning the award, the said amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with. Taking into consideration that the Tribunal has awarded certain amounts though strictly not permissible for want of evidence and having regard to the fact that the total amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.69,500/- on a whole represents just and fair compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant, who was aged 65 years, in the circumstances, it is considered that the amount awarded by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. There are no valid or justifiable grounds for grant of enhancement of the award. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 05.11.2011 bss