JUDGMENT :

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the award and decree, dated 08.01.2019 made in M.V.O.P.No.2220 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. The facts, in issue, are as under:

The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 18.06.2013. According to the appellant, on 18.06.2013 while the appellant was proceeding on his friend’s Scooter No.AIM 7366 as pillion rider and when they reached near Vijetha Super Market, one Water Tanker bearing No.AP 04 U 6091, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed scooter, as a result of which, the appellant sustained fracture to his right thigh, head injury and blunt injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the appellant was shifted to Remedy Hospital, Kukatpally for treatment where he was treated as inpatient surgery was performed by inserting steel rods. It is further stated that due to injuries he was completely bed ridden and lost his income and also lost amenities and social status as he suffered permanent disability, therefore, he laid the claim against the respondents, seeking compensation.

3. After considering the claim and the counters filed by respondents, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the O.P. awarding compensation of Rs.4,76,970/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Challenging the said quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and seeks enhancement of the same as he suffered 60% permanent disability, the Tribunal has taken the disability at 20%. Therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation duly taking into consideration the disability at 60%. It is further contended that the appellant is aged about 19 years and due to the disability, he lost his amenities and social status, therefore, prayed to award reasonable amount for the loss sustained by him.

6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is based on evidence available on record and the same needs no interference.

7. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged either by the owner or insurer of the vehicle.

8. The short question that arises for consideration is “whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and equitable”?

9. In order to establish his case, the appellant examined himself as PW.1 and the Doctor, who treated him, as P.W.2. In support of the injuries as well as the disability sustained by him, the appellant got marked Ex.A6, disability certificate, issued by P.W.2. P.W.2, the doctor who treated the claimant, had deposed in his evidence that the appellant was suffering with permanent disability at 20% and loss of earning capacity is around 60%. As per Ex.A6 and the evidence of P.W.2, the appellant has suffered with 20% permanent partial disability and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the disability at 20% while calculating the loss of earnings, which needs no interference. Further, the other amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of medical expenses, loss of earnings during the period of treatment, future medical expenses and pain and suffering, transportation and extra nourishment need no interference as they are just a