IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.2735 of 2003 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Labbipet, Vijayawada .. Appellant AND Challangali Venkateswarlu and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award dated 01-07-2002 in MVOPNo.118 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The factual background is that the 1st respondent herein was travelling in Auto No.AP-16-W-7541 on 29-11-1999 when the mini lorry bearing No.AP 7V 193 driven rashly and negligently, dashed against the auto. The 1st respondent herein sustained fractures on the right backside of the spinal cord bone, left knee, left shoulder and right elbow and other grievous injuries. He was treated at Government Hospital, Vijayawada as inpatient for three months and the police registered a case against the mini lorry driver. The 1st respondent herein spent Rs.90,000/- towards medical treatment and hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the drivers, owners and insurers of the auto and the mini lorry. While the claim was dismissed against the drivers for default and the owners remained ex parte, the insurers in their separate written statements denied all the allegations of the 1st respondent herein and contended that the responsibility has to be equally shared between the two vehicles, while the compensation claimed is excessive. The Tribunal framed issues about the manner of the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 and B.1 and B.2 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award holding that Ex.A.1-First Information Report and the evidence of the injured- PW.1 showed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry by the 1st respondent to the claim. The Tribunal, in assessing the compensation payable, took the disability at 50% as certified in Ex.A.5 and took the income of the 1st respondent herein at Rs.110/- per day or Rs.3,300/- per month and for the age of 25 years, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 17 after deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses of the injured. The total loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.4,48,800/- and the disability being 50%, the compensation payable to the injured was calculated at Rs.2,24,400/-, in addition to which Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards medical expenses as there were no medical bills to support the claim. The Tribunal, therefore, awarded a compensation of Rs.2,29,400/- with interest at 9% p.a. against the owner and insurer of the mini lorry only and dismissed the claim against the other respondents to the claim. The insurer of the mini lorry filed the appeal contending that when the doctor, who issued Ex.A.2-wound certificate or Ex.A.5- disability certificate was not examined, they could not have been considered and the Tribunal could not have acted on the income claimed by the injured at Rs.110/- per day and the compensation awarded was excessive, more so, when the age of the injured was not proved as 25 years and hence, the insurer desired the impugned award to be reversed. Heard Sri T. Ramulu, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, Sri N.S. Bhaskara Rao and Sri V. Raghu, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. Insofar as the responsibility for the accident is concerned, the grounds of appeal do not contain any challenge to the finding of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry by the 1st respondent to the claim being the cause for the accident and therefore, the liability of the owner and insurer of the mini lorry to justly and adequately compensate the injured for the injuries and their consequences cannot be in doubt. Coming to the quantum of such compensation, it is seen that the evidence of PW.1, the injured remained uncontroverted about the identity and nature of the injuries suffered by him. While he reiterated the allegations in the claim petition in his chief- examination, during the cross-examination by the insurers, nothing was elicited to doubt the age or income or the injuries or their consequences as claimed by him though suggestions were made in general. No contrary evidence to the claims of PW.1 was adduced by any of the respondents to the claim and even in the earliest version in the First Information Report, the seriousness of the injuries suffered by PW.1 was stated. Ex.A.2-wound certificate described in detail the various injuries suffered by the injured and the disability certificate refers to the number of fractures received by the injured. In Ex.A.4-certificate the General Secretary of the Workers Union concerned certified the probable income of the injured at Rs.110/- per day and the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Vijayawada in Ex.A.6 clearly mentioned the disability suffered to be 50% and the injured to be still under treatment and physiotherapy. In the absence of any contrary evidence, there is no reason to disturb the factual findings of the Tribunal about the quantum of income or the nature of disability and significantly though the injured was still alive and was claiming the compensation for himself, the Tribunal had thought it fit to deduct 1/3rd of the assessed income towards personal expenses as if it was a case of death and what was assessed was loss of dependency. The medical expenses were granted at a minimal level because of the absence of any documentary evidence. The injured would have definitely incurred much more expenses towards the same and the Tribunal did not consider grant of damages under various other permissible heads to the injured-PW.1, except loss of future earning capacity and minimal medical expenses. The conservative compensation granted by the Tribunal, therefore, does not appear to be susceptible to any further reduction and the interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. was not shown to be in any way deviant from the then prevailing rate of interest and therefore, the impugned award cannot be interfered with under the circumstances. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10-10-2011 Ksn