JUDGMENT : Ninala Jayasurya, J. The present appeal is preferred by the State aggrieved by Judgment and decree in O.S No.24 of 2008 on the file of V Addl. District Judge, Kadapa., dated 17.08.2010. 2. The 1st respondent represented by his next friend father filed a suit towards expenditure incurred apart from compensation for the injury sustained by him. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff/respondent No.1, son of a coolie and a fourth class student was present in the classroom on 27.10.2006. The 4th defendant/respondent No.2 who is a Teacher in the M.P Elementary School., with a view to punish a student by name Anand, had chased him with a stick and entered into the classroom of the plaintiff and raised the stick, but due to his carelessness and negligence, the stick contacted the right eye of the plaintiff and a result of the same, he sustained grievous injury. The father of the plaintiff took him to Rayachoty, Government Hospital for treatment, on their advice joined him in L.V Prasad Eye Hospital, Hyderabad., where a surgery was conducted and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-., was incurred for the same. Though the 4th defendant/respondent No.2 promised that he would meet the medical expenditure, he had not paid any amount and therefore, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed suit claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. In the Trial Court the appellants/defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. The 4th defendant/respondent No.2 contested the suit by filing written statement. During the course of trial, the Trial Court formulated the following issues:- “1. Whether the 4th defendant has caused the grievous injury to the right eye of the minor plaintiff as pleaded by the plaintiff? 2. Whether the Minor plaintiff is entitled for any compensation for the injury sustained by him?. If so at what rate and against which of the defendants? 3. To what relief?” 4. On behalf of plaintiff PWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A1 to A18 were marked. The defendant No.4/respondent No.2 was examined as DW1. He had not adduced any documentary evidence. 5. Before the Trial Court, the 4th defendant/respondent No.2 inter alia pleaded that he was not responsible for the injury and the plaintiff/respondent No.1 might have sustained the same by falling on ground. The defendant No.4/respondent No.2 was examined as DW1. He had not adduced any documentary evidence. 5. Before the Trial Court, the 4th defendant/respondent No.2 inter alia pleaded that he was not responsible for the injury and the plaintiff/respondent No.1 might have sustained the same by falling on ground. However, the learned Trial Court by considering the evidence of PWs.2 to 5 coupled with Ex.A.15-letter addressed by the Teacher/defendant No.4 to the DEO, Kadapa recorded a finding that the injury sustained by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 to the right eye was on account of deliberate act of the 4th defendant/respondent No.2. 6. Insofar as the claim for compensation for the injury as also expenditure incurred for the treatment, the Doctor who was examined as PW6 categorically deposed that the visual impairment suffered by the plaintiff is 30% as per uniform definition of Physically Handicapped, Ministry of Welfare, Government of India. He further deposed that there is no chance of getting vision to the right eye and the plaintiff was advised to put an artificial eye. He also deposed that plaintiff/respondent No.1 requires regular checkup to the left eye for six months to keep left eye safe. 7. Taking the oral evidence adduced through PW.6 and the documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A1 and A2, Discharge Summary issued by Sankar Nethralaya, Eye Hospital and Opthaimic Report issued by Dr.Agarwal Subhash Eye Hospital, Chennai, Ex.A12 Visually Handicapped Certificate issued by S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupathi, etc., into consideration, the learned Trial Judge had arrived at the compensation for the disability suffered by the plaintiff by adopting the formula as per 2nd schedule to MOTOR VEHICLES ACT ., at Rs.67,500/-. The Trial Court has also awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- incurred for the treatment of the plaintiff. Insofar as expenses for future medical treatment, transportation and attendant charges an amount of Rs.50,000/- was granted and the Trial Court had awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for pain and suffering, loss of vision of right eye of the plaintiff, loss of confidence, discomfort and hardship for remaining period of life and loss of marriage prospects. Thus, the Trial Court decreed the suit partly for Rs.4,17,500/- payable jointly and severally by the defendants 1 to 4 with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the plaint, till the date of realization. Hence, the present appeal. 8. Thus, the Trial Court decreed the suit partly for Rs.4,17,500/- payable jointly and severally by the defendants 1 to 4 with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the plaint, till the date of realization. Hence, the present appeal. 8. Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader for the appellants sought to impress upon this Court that the judgment and decree is erroneous and not sustainable. Her contention is that the amount of compensation is highly excessive and the Trial Court erred in fixing the liability on the appellants/defendants 1 to 3. She also contended that the interest @ 7.5 % p.a. is on higher side. On a due consideration of the submissions made and on appreciating the evidence on record, this Court is not inclined to accept the contentions advanced. First of all, the appellants/ defendant Nos.1 to 3 remained exparte before Trial Court. Apart from the same, the fact that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 sustained injury to the right eye due to the act of the Teacher was established and the learned Trail Judge rightly concluded that as the defendant No.4 caused injury to the plaintiff/student in the school during the course of employment, the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 to whom the 4th respondent is sub-ordinate, are vicariously liable to pay the compensation to the injury sustained by the plaintiff/respondent No.2. 9. Insofar as the arguments with reference to the compensation, the learned Trial Court, considering evidence of the PW.6-Doctor, the material on record and the injury sustained by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 decreed the suit in part. This Court on considering the matter is of the considered opinion that neither the amount awarded nor the interest are excessive and warrants no interference of this Court. For the aforegoing reasons, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.