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.2388 of 2003 Between: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Nizamabad. ..... Appellant AND Kompally Premalatha & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad Counsel for the respondents: None The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2388 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of award dated 05.06.2002 in O.P.No.593 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short, “the Tribunal”). Respondent No.2 in the abovementioned O.P., is the appellant. The appellant is the insurance company with whom lorry bearing No.HR 47/3474 was insured. On 01.07.1999, the said lorry collided with jeep bearing registration No.AP 15E 6633 in which respondent No.1 was traveling and suffered injuries. Respondent No.1, who is a house wife, claimed Rs.1,60,000/- towards compensation. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.85,000/- as against the said claim. At the hearing Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the award is on a high side. He has mainly addressed the Court on the head of compensation towards injuries under which the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/-. The learned counsel submitted that though respondent No.1 in her evidence has stated that she has suffered fractures on skull and other limbs, Exs.A2 and A3 do not support her case. I have carefully gone through Exs.A2 and A3. Ex.A3 is the discharge summary of the Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, wherein the following injuries are mentioned. “1. A laceration on right side above the eye irregular 3cm x 3cm depth and 2. A laceration on right hand above the middle finger, irregular 6cm x 1cm depth.” Ex.A2 is the discharge summary of Vijaya Health Care, which reads as under: “H/o. RTA while the jeep in which patient was traveling collided with a static lorry when coming from Nizamabad at mid night. Patient was taken to Gandhi and later shifted here H/Order LOC+No Vomiting, No H/Order available regarding LOC, Vomiting seizur activity. No diabetic and hypertensive. Q/E: Drowsy, spontaneous movements + moving 4 limbs not obeying commands sutured lacerated on right eye brow, lacerated wound on dorsum of right hand extending inter digitally. No visible active ENT bleed. BP: 120/80; PR: 92/min, H/L NAD, No FND(L) pupil NSRL right eye black. CT Scan of Brain Report showed Cerebral Oedema. Patient managed with Mannitol, Epsolin, Gutencef, Amikacin, Metrogyl, Voveran, Rantac, Beplex Forte, Norsal eye drops, Cifran eye drops and IV fluids. Condition at discharge: GC Fair, Afebrile Vitals are stable Ambulant.” PW.2, the Doctor, who is stated to have examined respondent No.1 on 20.02.2001 i.e., more than 1 ½ years after the accident has occurred, however, issued Ex.A-34 - disability certificate showing that respondent No.1 has suffered the disability of 55%. A careful perusal of the said disability certificate and his evidence, does not inspire confidence therein. The evidence of PW.2 and Exs.A2 and A3 which would show that the injuries were comparatively simple in nature, but, however, respondent No.1 was required to take treatment in a private nursing home for healing of the wounds do not lend support to the case of respondent No.1 that she has undergone skull surgery or that she had suffered permanent partial disability, as certified under Ex.A34. Therefore, there is no justification for the Tribunal to award Rs.50,000/- towards injuries having granted Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. In view of hospitalization of respondent No.1 for about two weeks i.e., from 02.07.1999 to 12.07.1999, she would have suffered loss of income apart from incurring expenditure on extra nourishment. In my opinion, it could be appropriate if the award of Rs.50,000/- is reduced to Rs.25,000/- under the above heads, namely, loss of income due to injuries and extra nourishment. Accordingly, award of Rs.25,000/- under the head ‘injury’ is set aside and the remaining award of the Tribunal stands confirmed. Subject to the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.11.2010 ES