IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A. No.837 of 2009 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad and another .. Appellants AND Smt. Sajida Akthar Sulthana @ Sajida Sulthana .. Respondent JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.1626 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional Chief Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 14-05-2008. The factual background for the appeal is that the respondent herein was travelling in A.P.S.R.T.C. bus AP 9Z 8657 on 15-07- 2006 at about 5.30 P.M. and when she was boarding the bus at Grammar School bus stop, Abids, Hyderabad, the driver suddenly moved the bus, due to which she fell down and sustained injuries and she had incurred huge medical expenses for grievous injuries sustained and hence, she sought for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- claiming that at the age of 45 years, she was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as attender in Panchayat Raj department and she suffered loss of income, pain and suffering, etc. The A.P.S.R.T.C. contested the claim contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the respondent herein and there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver. It was also contended that there was no proof of the medical expenses and the income and that the Corporation has no liability to pay the compensation. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the respondent herein for compensation and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 and X.1 during the course of enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award noting that the evidence of P.W.1 corroborated by Ex.A.1 first information report shows that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus. The Tribunal considered the evidence of P.W.1, the injured, and P.W.2, the doctor, who treated P.W.1, with reference to the quantum of compensation to be awarded and as P.W.1 sustained a grievous fracture and took treatment, towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to award Rs.50,000/-. On the medical bills produced in Ex.A.6 showing an expenditure of Rs.7,822/-, the Tribunal granted Rs.8,000/- towards medical expenses and towards the leave period proved by Ex.A.10 leave proceedings, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- to compensate the loss of leave. In total, the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.78,000/- with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum and proportionate costs. The appellant Corporation contended herein that the conclusions about the rash and negligent driving, etc., the award of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- towards the leave period are excessive and incorrect and hence, the impugned award is sought to be reversed. Heard Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellants and Sri B. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant. The point for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation from the appellants and if so, to what extent ? Point: In so far as the manner in which the accident had occurred is concerned, the earliest version contained in Ex.A.1 first information report squarely laid the blame at the door of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus driver and to contradict the same, the appellants did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. P.W.1, the injured, also deposed on oath before the Tribunal about the manner of the accident, and the Tribunal concluding the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver being the cause for the accident cannot be considered to be unreasonable and not based on evidence on record under such circumstances. In so far as the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident are concerned, there was the independent evidence of P.W.2, the orthopaedic surgeon, who stated about treating P.W.1 between 15-07-2006 and 25-07-2006. The medical officer clearly stated that there was fracture of right leg as claimed by the injured, which was grievous and though no surgery was performed and though the injured was treated only as outpatient, the evidence of P.W.2 clearly shows that the injuries are not simple as suggested by the Corporation. The grievous injury, which resulted in fracture of right leg, must have obviously disabled the claimant from performing her duties for a long time, which is also corroborated by the leave proceedings Ex.A.10 as noted by the Tribunal. The injured P.W.1 deposed on oath before the Tribunal about her suffering also a head injury and she also stated that as she was only a temporary employee, she could not even be admitted as in-patient in the hospital. She also stated that she was still unable to stand or walk normally even after the treatment. She claimed that her loss of earnings was Rs.18,000/-, while she had to engage a maid servant to assist her by paying Rs.1,500/- per month. She claimed the compensation for not only loss of earnings but also transport to hospital, extra nourishment, medicines, damage to clothing, attendant charges, pain and suffering, continuing permanent disability, loss of pleasure and amenities of life and functional disability, which total to Rs.2,00,000/-. While it is true that there was no proof of any continuing permanent disability, it is clear that she suffered the loss of earnings claimed by her as found by the Tribunal from Ex.A.10 and also suffered the medical expenses, only part of which could have been proved by Ex.A.6 to the extent of Rs.7,822/-. The Tribunal did not consider awarding any separate compensation towards transport to and from the hospital or extra nourishment or damage to clothing or attendant charges or loss of amenities of life or functional disability due to the limping and discomfort claimed to have been permanently left for the claimant. Though the grant of Rs.50,000/- only under the head of pain and suffering appeared to be a little on high side as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, the fact remains that the Tribunal did not grant adequate or any damages under various pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads, under which the claimant could have been granted compensation as stated above. If all such heads of account be considered together, the total amount of compensation granted at Rs.78,000/- does not appear to be excessive or high. The compensation awarded being, thus, just and adequate, cannot be interfered with in this appeal. However, the learned counsel for the appellants also referred to the possibility of the medical expenses of the injured being reimbursed by the employer by the very nature of her employment with the Panchayat Raj department of State Government and contended that the claimant cannot be made entitled to the reimbursement of such medical expenses again as part of the compensation. However, the enquiry before the Tribunal did not bring out any material to show that she would have claimed any such medical reimbursement or that any such medical reimbursement was, in fact, given to her. If the appellants are able to show that the claimant had, in fact, obtained such medical reimbursement from her employer, then to that extent, the award can be made inexecutable even before the executing Court and subject to such modification, the award in question has to be confirmed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs, but the amount of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) granted by the Tribunal as part of the compensation towards medical expenses with the consequential interest on Rs.8,000/- at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs thereon will not be liable to be paid by the respondents to O.P. No.1626 of 2006 in the event of the respondents being able to prove before the Tribunal in any proceedings for the execution of the award that the claimant had, in fact, been reimbursed of all such medical expenses by her employer. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 07-09-2010 Svv