IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2953 of 2003 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS Between: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Nizamabad. ..... Appellant AND Shaik Fazal & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Sri Mallikarjun for Sri R. Brize Mohan Singh Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri P. Radhive Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2953 of 2003 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of award dated 16.10.2002 in O.P.No.498 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad (for short, “the Tribunal”). The Oriental Insurance Company, respondent No.2 in the abovementioned O.P., is the appellant. Respondent No.1 herein, who is a Tailor by profession, sustained injuries when he was traveling in jeep bearing No. MH 26/C 4793 from Nizamabad towards Bhainsa. When the jeep reached a place near Mudhole bus stand, it has dashed against APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 9Z 8961. Respondent No.1 received multiple injuries including fracture of femur bone. He was initially admitted in Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad and was later on shifted to a private hospital by name Pragathi Nursing Home, Nizamabad, where he has undergone surgery on his right leg with insertion of a rod. The Tribunal, after assessing compensation at Rs.2,39,200/- has, however, limited the same to Rs.2,00,000/-, as claimed by respondent No.1. At the hearing, Sri Mallikarjun representing Sri R. Briz Mohan Singh, learned Standing counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on a high side. Sri P.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, however, opposed the above contention of the learned Standing counsel and submitted that having regard to the nature of the injuries suffered by his client, award of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation is reasonable and the same does not call for interference of this Court. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In support of his claim, respondent No.1 has examined himself as PW.1 and Dr.L. Ramulu as PW.2. He has filed Exs.A1 to A10, which include FIR in Crime No.49 of 1999 (Ex.A1), certified copy of charge sheet (Ex.A2), wound certificate (Ex.A3), discharge card of Pragathi Hospital, Nizamabad (Ex.A4) and medical bills and X-ray (Exs.A7 and A10 respectively). Ex.C1 is the disability certificate issued by PW.2. Ex.A3 shows that respondent No.1 sustained compound fracture of right femur. Ex.A4, discharge card issued by Pragathi Hospital, shows that respondent No.1 was inpatient from 26.05.1999 to 15.06.1999. Having regard to the nature of fracture suffered by respondent No.1, the Tribunal has taken the disability at 35% as against 65% certified by PW.2 in his certificate marked as Ex.C1. The Tribunal has assessed the income of respondent No.1 at Rs.3,000/- per month and applied the multiplier of 17 by taking his age as on the date of deposition as 23 years. On the overall consideration of the entire evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, as claimed by respondent No.1. For the abovementioned reasons, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The cross objections filed by respondent No.1 - claimant are also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.11.2010 ES