IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A. No.4076 of 2003 Between: Thalla Kumaraswamy .. Appellant AND Neduri Mogili and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.332 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, dated 15-07-2002, passed in pursuance of a common order in O.P. Nos.331 and 332 of 1999. The factual background for the appeal is that on 19-05-1997 the claimant and one Jamalapur Ravinder were going on TVS Suzuki motor cycle No.AP15 5924 and at about 10.30 P.M. near canal bridge in the outskirts of Huzurabad, tractor-trailer No.AP 15V 273/274, driven rashly and negligently at high speed, dashed against the motor cycle. Jamalapur Ravinder died and the claimant received grievous injuries in the accident, which is the subject of crime No.71 of 1997 of Huzurabad police station. The 1st respondent, owner-cum-driver of the tractor-trailer, was prosecuted in C.C. No.366 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad and the claimant suffered a comminuted fracture of middle one-third femur on right thigh, a comminuted fracture of upper end of tibia of right leg, grievous injuries on right knee, cheek and left abdomen and simple bleeding injuries all over the body. The claimant was first treated at Government hospital, Huzurabad and then at NIMS hospital, Hyderabad as in-patient and then at Jaya hospitals, Hanamkonda till 18-06-1997. The claimant claimed to have incurred Rs.1,20,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.5,000/- towards damage to motor cycle etc., and he requires another Rs.35,000/- to undergo a further surgery. Hence, he claimed a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the owner-cum-driver and insurer of the tractor-trailer. The owner of the tractor-trailer contested the claim contending that the motor cycle was driven rashly and negligently and dashed against the tractor. The claimant sustained only simple injuries and did not spend any money for treatment. The 1st respondent had a valid driving licence and the vehicle was validly insured with the 2nd respondent. Hence, the 2nd respondent is liable to indemnify the 1st respondent in respect of any compensation. The insurer contested the claim putting the claimant to strict proof of his averments and the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle led to the accident, due to which the respondents are not liable to compensate. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident, subsistence of valid insurance for the tractor-trailer and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation. O.P. Nos.331 and 332 of 1999 arising out of the same accident were tried together and a common order was pronounced by the Tribunal after examining P.Ws.1 to 4 and marking Exs.A.1 to A.13 and Ex.B.1 during the enquiry. In the common order, the Tribunal firstly accepted the version of the injured claimant as P.W.2 and another eye witness as P.W.3. The Tribunal also referred to Ex.A.1 first information report, Ex.A.2 charge-sheet, etc., and concluded that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor- trailer. From Ex.B.1 copy of insurance policy, the Tribunal concluded the existence of a valid insurance policy at the relevant time. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded Rs.17,000/- and Rs.14,000/- towards medical expenses as disclosed by Ex.A.7. Out of Rs.14,000/- covered by Ex.A.8 receipts, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges. The Tribunal on a careful scrutiny of the medical record and the evidence of the injured, found the claimant to have sustained grievous multiple injuries on the right hip, left femur and right upper end of tibia resulting in permanent partial disability up to 40%. Consequently, the Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards the two fractures, Rs.5,000/- towards contusion over right knee, Rs.2,000/- towards burns on right side of the abdomen and Rs.2,000/- for simple injury on cheek. It further granted Rs.10,000/- towards permanent partial disability, pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards future treatment. On the total compensation of Rs.1,01,000/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till realization, for which respondents 1 and 2 were held liable jointly and severely. The claimant was aggrieved by the said award and filed the present appeal contending that future surgery for removal of implants required a sum of Rs.35,000/- and the appellant incurred Rs.15,000/- towards transport charges. The permanent disability suffered at 40% as per Ex.A.12 should have led to the grant of the entire claim of Rs.2,00,000/- under the circumstances. Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ravi Shankar Jandyala, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurer are heard, while the 1st respondent, owner- cum-driver of the tractor-trailer, did not enter appearance before this Court. The insurer or the owner-cum-driver did not challenge the findings of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident with the 1st respondent and the subsistence of a valid insurance policy with the 2nd respondent at the relevant time. The respondents also did not challenge the conclusion about the happening of the accident, the injuries of the claimant and the course of treatment. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration herein is the quantum of just and adequate compensation payable to the claimant. So far as Ex.A.7 medical bills are concerned, the award of the Tribunal evidently accepted the right of the claimant to have reimbursement of the amounts spent under the said bills. While the bill issued by Jaya hospitals was for Rs.14,000/-, the bill issued by Apollo hospitals was not for Rs.17,000/- as observed by the Tribunal. The in-patient bill dated 31-05-1997 was for a total sum of Rs.52,444/-, out of which Rs.35,000/- were stated to have already been deposited leaving the balance of Rs.17,444/-. Therefore, the said sum omitted to be considered has to be granted to the injured claimant to a tune of Rs.35,000/-. Similarly, in so far as the transport bills issued under Ex.A.8 are concerned, they are for a sum of Rs.14,000/-, but only Rs.5,000/- were awarded. The Tribunal did not suspect the genuineness of Ex.A.8 bills and if so, the said amount actually spent also should have been granted in the absence of any evidence creating any doubts about the acceptability of the said bills. The injured claimant as P.W.2 stated about the severe injuries he received in the accident, the surgeries he had undergone and claimed that he has to spend Rs.35,000/- to have the steel rods removed from his body. He also claimed that the repairs to motor cycle would cost Rs.5,000/-. While he claimed to be still limping due to shortening of his leg, his occupation is stated to be chit business. Therefore, no loss of future earning capacity can be presumed from the limping. The Tribunal awarded reasonable sums towards each of the injuries, but awarded only Rs.5,000/- towards future treatment and Rs.10,000/- towards permanent partial disability, pain and suffering. Award of a further sum of Rs.6,000/- under these various heads of damages may result in an overall satisfaction of the requirement of granting just and adequate compensation. While an element of guess and estimate is inevitable in such assessment, awarding a further compensation of Rs.50,000/- will meet the ends of justice. Such enhanced compensation can carry interest at 6 per cent per annum only in view of the length of time for which interest has to be paid by the insurer from out of the public funds in its custody. In the result, the award in O.P. No.332 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, dated 15-07-2002 is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award and the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-08-2011 Svv