IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3383 of 2003 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager, Near Mayura Hotel, Nizamabad ... APPELLANT AND Manninti Shivaraj and another ... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.314 of 1997 dated 03-04-2003 passed by the learned Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The brief facts are as follows: On 31-01-1997, while the petitioner, who was the Driver of the District Collector, Nizamabad, was driving the car bearing No.AP-25-A-3399 at about 1.30 a.m., a lorry bearing No.MH-22- 299 came in opposite direction and dashed the car of the District Collector. On account of that the petitioner received several injuries which included fractures. The petitioner was admitted in A.P. Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, Kamareddi, and from there he was shifted to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, where he was treated as inpatient. His right leg was operated twice and rods were also inserted. He incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/- for his treatment and this accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing No.MH-22-299. After the accident he was unable to work properly, his future earnings and amenities are affected and became dependent on others. He claims Rs.10,80,000/- towards compensation, but restricted his claim to Rs.5,00,000/-. The insurance company – second respondent filed counter- affidavit. 4. Basing on the allegations and the counter allegations, the trial Court framed the following three issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.MH-22-299 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation ? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents ? 3. To what relief ? 5. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-17 were marked. 6. On the basis of the material available on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the same. 7. In this C.M.A., the quantum of compensation is seriously disputed by the appellant/respondent No.2. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is proper and justified ? 9. The Court below awarded Rs.1,40,000/- towards fracture and other injuries sustained by the petitioner, and Rs.50,000/- towards medicines and extra nourishment, and Rs.10,000/- towards past and future pain and sufferings. 10. This is a case of fracture to the right femur and certain other injuries. The evidence of PW-2, the Medical Officer shows that he examined the claimant much later i.e., on 07-11-2007 and assessed 70% permanent partial disability. The Doctor, who treated the petitioner, was never examined. The evidence of PW-2 cannot be relied upon at all, he has gone to the extent of assessing the disability at 70% partially and permanently, which is totally exaggerated. 11. Ex.A-2 discharge record of NIMS shows that the claimant suffered fracture of right femur and plating was done. There is no reference about two injuries suffered by him. The petitioner being a Government servant, most of the medical bills were reimbursed, as such, he might not have incurred substantial medical expenses. 12. No doubt, the claimant must have been suffered pain and some disability on account of the accident, which would be more significant, on account of his being a Driver. Fracture of right leg would naturally cause inconvenience to him in discharging his duties as Driver. However, the compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- is very high towards the disability. 13. Therefore, considering all these circumstances, the petitioner can be awarded Rs.50,000/- towards disability and Rs.60,000/- towards his loss of amenities of life, extra nourishment and pain and suffering etc. Thus, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rs.60,000/- + Rs.50,000/-) instead of Rs.2,00,000/- . In all other aspects, the order passed by the Tribunal shall remain un-altered. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. June 21, 2010 Pn THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3383 of 2003 June 21, 2010