JUDGMENT : Feeling aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 14.05.2009 passed in O.P. No.1737 of 2002 by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the Insurance Company preferred the present appeal. 2. Vide aforesaid award, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, except for default period from 24.02.2006 to 06.11.2008 and also with proportionate costs, as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- laid by the 1st respondent – claimant. 3. Disputing the quantum of compensation, the appellant – Insurance company preferred MACMA No.3409 of 2009. Seeking enhancement of compensation, the 1st respondent – claimant filed cross-objection No.5 of 2009. 4. For the sake of convenience, the appellant in the appeal shall be referred to as ‘Insurance company’ and the Cross objector shall be referred to as ‘claimant’. 5. Sri N. J. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company would contend that the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation to the claimant without considering the entire material in proper perspective. He would further contend that the Tribunal having observed that the claimant was reimbursed with the medical expenses and salary without any hindrance of whatsoever, erred in awarding a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards loss of salary. He would further contend that the Tribunal did not note the fact that the claimant continued to serve in the institution where he is working without any break after a short lapse of time during the course of medical treatment. The Tribunal did not advert to Ex.A10 – disability certificate wherein only restricted movement of the left knee was noted and the other fractures were united. Thus, the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.1,00,000/- compensation towards disability. With the said contentions, learned counsel for the Insurance company prayed to set aside the impugned award. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant would contend that the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- laid by the claimant. According to him the Tribunal did not consider the nature of injuries and the treatment taken by him, while awarding compensation. The Tribunal erred in disallowing the medical expenses claimed by the claimant. According to him the Tribunal did not consider the nature of injuries and the treatment taken by him, while awarding compensation. The Tribunal erred in disallowing the medical expenses claimed by the claimant. The Tribunal instead of awarding an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation under various heads as claimed by the claimant, has erroneously awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. With the said contentions, the learned counsel for the claimant prayed to enhance the compensation. 7. On the analysis of the entire record, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal gave a finding that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Sumo bearing registration No. AP 9 AH 3364 i.e. crime vehicle. On perusal of the grounds of appeal, there is no dispute with regard to the said finding by the appellant – Insurance company. During the course of arguments also the Insurance company did not dispute with regard to the said finding. Therefore, the said finding attained finality. The dispute is with regard to quantum of compensation. 8. The claimant laid claim for Rs.5,00,000/- under various heads. According to the claimant, he has sustained fracture injuries. He was shifted to Apollo Hospital and got treatment from 14.05.2002 to 18.05.2002 as in-patient. He underwent operation, implants were inserted with screws. The claimant has taken treatment in the very same hospital from 17.01.2003 to 18.01.2003 for removal of implants. In proof of the same, the claimant has filed Exs.A4 and A5 – discharge summaries of Apollo hospital. Ex.A3 is the wound certificate, Ex.A6 is the bunch of medical reports, Ex.A7 is the treatment certificate issued by the Apollo hospital for the treatment taken by the claimant and Ex.A10 is the disability certificate issued by Dr.B. Ramakrishna. On perusal of Exs.A3 to A7 and A10, the claimant received fracture injuries and he was shifted to Apollo hospital. The claimant was treated in the Apollo Hospital from 14.05.2002 to 18.05.2002 as in-patient. He underwent operation, implants were inserted with screws. He has again joined in the very same hospital on 17.01.2003 for removal of the implants and discharged on 18.03.2003. 9. The claimant claimed an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- towards medical expenses under Ex.A9 – medical bill. The claimant has examined himself as PW.1 and also examined PW.3 – Dr. B. Ramakrishna, who treated him. He has again joined in the very same hospital on 17.01.2003 for removal of the implants and discharged on 18.03.2003. 9. The claimant claimed an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- towards medical expenses under Ex.A9 – medical bill. The claimant has examined himself as PW.1 and also examined PW.3 – Dr. B. Ramakrishna, who treated him. PW.1 was working as Manager (Administration) in M/s. Portal Player Private Limited, Hyderabad and was drawing a salary of Rs.34,327/- per month as on the date of accident. However, the claimant has admitted during cross-examination that his employer has reimbursed the amount of Rs.94,669.68 ps., which he has claimed under Ex.A9 towards medical expenses. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled for the said amount of Rs.94,669.68 ps., towards medical expenses. The Tribunal on considering the deposition of PW.1 and Ex.A9 has rightly held that the claimant is not entitled for the said amount. 10. The claimant has claimed an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards extra nourishment. By considering the nature of injuries received by the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards extra nourishment. As discussed above, the claimant received grievous injuries, he has taken treatment in Apollo hospital from 14.05.2002 to 18.05.2002 and from 17.01.2003 to 18.01.2003. He underwent operation and implants were inserted with screws. The said implants were removed in the very same hospital. Considering the same, according to this Court, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards extra nourishment. 11. The claimant has claimed an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation. As discussed above, after the accident, the appellant was shifted to Apollo hospital, where he has taken treatment from 14.05.2002 to 18.05.2002. He has again joined in the very same hospital on 17.03.2003 for the purpose of removal of the implants inserted with screws. Therefore, he is entitled for the said amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation. The Tribunal, on consideration of entire evidence, has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation. 12. The claimant has claimed an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards damage to clothes. The Tribunal has not awarded the said amount. According to this Court, the said amount is reasonable and he is entitled for the said amount. He has also claimed an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards damage to his vehicle. However, during cross-examination, he has admitted that the insurance company has paid an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards damage to the vehicle. The Tribunal has not awarded the said amount. According to this Court, the said amount is reasonable and he is entitled for the said amount. He has also claimed an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards damage to his vehicle. However, during cross-examination, he has admitted that the insurance company has paid an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards damage to the vehicle. Therefore, he is not entitled for the said amount. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the claimant is not entitled for the said amount of Rs.2,500/- towards damage to the vehicle. There is no error in the said finding of the Tribunal. 13. The claimant has claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards future prospectus, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation on account of permanent disability, Rs,50,000/- towards loss of future earnings and Rs.82,500/- towards loss of earnings for two months. In support of the said claim, the claimant has examined himself as PW.1 and also examined PW.3 – Dr.B. Ramakrishna, who treated him. He has filed Ex.A9 – medical bills, Ex.A8 – Salary certificate, Ex.A13 – appointment order, Ex.A14 – increment letter, Ex.A15 – Form No.16 and Ex.A-16 – copy of the PAN card. The claimant has also filed Ex.A11 – pattadar passbook, Ex.A12 – title deed in proof of agricultural income. PW.2 is an employee of the company in which the claimant was working as on the date of accident. However, during cross examination, PW.2 has categorically admitted that as on the date of accident, he was working as Manager (Administration) and his salary was Rs.11,30,000/- per annum. 14. As discussed above, the claimant has received grievous fracture injuries, implants were inserted with screws by doing operation and the said implants were removed. PW.1 has admitted that he was on medical leave for a period of two or three months and he has discharged his duties from house with laptop provided by his employer. He has further admitted that he has received salary for the said period. However, considering the entire evidence, more particularly, the depositions of PWs.1 and 2, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.70,000/- towards salary for the said medical leave period. However, learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the said amount of Rs.70,000/- is meager. As discussed supra, PW.1 himself admitted during cross-examination that he was on medical leave for the said period and he has received salary for the said period. However, learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the said amount of Rs.70,000/- is meager. As discussed supra, PW.1 himself admitted during cross-examination that he was on medical leave for the said period and he has received salary for the said period. Therefore, the said amount of Rs.70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards salary for the medical leave period is reasonable. The claimant is not entitled for enhancement of any amount. The appellant – Insurance company failed to establish any ground to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal and award of Rs.70,000/- to the claimant. 15. The claimant has claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- compensation towards permanent disability. In support of the same, the claimant has examined himself as PW.1 and also examined PW.3 – Doctor, who treated him and also filed Ex.A10 – disability certificate issued by PW.3. In Ex.A10 – disability certificate, the disability of the claimant is mentioned as 30% partial permanent disability. The same is supported by the evidence of PW.3. However, learned counsel for the Insurance company would submit that PW.3 is not competent to issue Ex.A10 – disability certificate and he has to conduct relevant tests while issuing Ex.A10 – disability certificate. He would further contend that the Tribunal is having power to disagree with the opinion of the doctor by giving reasons. 16. On the other hand learned counsel for the claimant would contend that the claimant has received grievous fracture injuries, he underwent surgery, implants were inserted and the same were removed by conducting surgery again. The injuries were supported by Ex.A3 – wound certificate, Exs.A4 and A5 – discharge summaries of the Apollo Hospital, Ex.A7 – treatment certificate and Ex.A6 – bunch of medical reports, Ex.A10 – disability certificate issued by PW.3. Admittedly, Ex.A10 was issued by PW.3 – doctor and he is not part of the Medical Board. However, in Ex.A10, the injuries received by the claimant were specifically mentioned and also the treatment received by him. The Insurance company failed to elicit anything from PW.1 and PW.3 to disprove Ex.A10 – disability certificate and also Ex.A3 – wound certificate. The Insurance company did not examine any witness in support of its contention. In the absence of any contra evidence, the disability of the claimant can be considered as 30% as mentioned in Ex.A10 – disability certificate. 17. The Insurance company did not examine any witness in support of its contention. In the absence of any contra evidence, the disability of the claimant can be considered as 30% as mentioned in Ex.A10 – disability certificate. 17. As discussed above, the claimant has spent amounts for surgery, insertion of implants with screws and removal of the same after conducting second surgery. According to PW.3 – doctor, an amount of Rs.40,000/- was required for removal of implants. In Ex.A10 – disability certificate, PW.3 noted that the Tibial fracture was united with moderate restriction of left knee movements. As per Ex.A8 – salary certificate, the claimant was earning an amount of Rs.11,30,000/- per annum as salary. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed by him towards compensation for the permanent disability. The Tribunal on the analysis of entire evidence has rightly awarded the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for permanent disability. According to this Court, the said amount awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant towards compensation for permanent disability is reasonable. This Court is satisfied with the reasons given by the Tribunal. The Appellant – Insurance company failed to establish any ground or circumstance that warrants interference by this Court in the impugned award. 18. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the following amounts towards compensation: i Extra nourishment Rs. 25,000.00 ii Transportation charges Rs. 10,000.00 iii Salary for the medical leave period Rs. 70,000.00 iv Compensation for Disability at 30% Rs.1,00,000.00 v Damage to clothes Rs. 2,500.00 Total compensation Rs.2,07,500.00 19. In the result, MACMA No.3409 of 2009 is dismissed and the Cross-Objection No.5 of 2009 is allowed in part. The award and decree dated 14.05.2002 passed in O.P. No.1737 of 2002 by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, are modified enhancing the compensation to Rs.2,07,500/- (Rupees two lakhs seven thousand and five hundred only) from Rs.2,00,000 /- (Rupees two lakhs only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum thereon, from the date of petition till realization except for the default period from 24.02.2006 to 06.11.2008. The appellant – Insurance company and the 2nd respondent – owner of the crime vehicle in MACMA No.3409 of 2009 are directed to deposit the above said amount with interest and costs after deducting the amount which was already deposited within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.