THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 2403 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the insurance company questioning the quantum of compensation granted in the award dated 30.11.2004 in O.P.No.432 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Khammam at Kothagudem. The claim petition was filed for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor accident on 11.04.1999 at about 6.45 a.m. when he was said to be going on cycle at M.G.Road, Kothagudem, a lorry bearing No.AP-20/U 1278 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which he suffered multiple injuries. The 1st and 2nd respondents remained ex parte and the 3rd respondent-insurance company filed counter denying the petition averments, nature of accident, nature of injuries and its liability. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record found that the accident was due to the fault of the driver of the lorry and granted a compensation of Rs.70,546/-. The insurance company is not disputing the said claim. Therefore, the point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is excessive? POINT: There is no dispute about the nature of the incident. As can be seen from the evidence on record, there are six injuries out of them there is a contusion in the right foot and there is a fracture, which is opined as a grievous injury and other injuries are also serious in nature. The evidence of P.W.2 goes to show that there are two fractures for injury No.3 disclosed in Ex.A-3. The lower Tribunal has taken into consideration the above facts and granted a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the injuries and for the medical expenses basing on Exs.A-4 and A-5 a sum of Rs.15,546/- and for loss of earnings Rs.5,000/- was granted. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the granting of compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards injuries is excessive. Evidently, the petitioner, who is a minor by the date of accident and the nature of the injuries, which were received by him to the right foot and ankle, are fractures that cause atleast temporary disability apart from the pain and suffering. The petitioner was in hospital for some time. The lower Tribunal has not granted any separate compensation for any disability and, therefore, taking into consideration, particularly the fact that the petitioner is a minor and I do not think that the compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is arbitrary and not based on evidence. Therefore, I hold that there are no merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 19-10-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2403 of 2011 DATE: 19-10-2011 MR