* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY + M.A.C.M.A.No.442 of 2007 %24.02.2010 # United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office At 5-2-17/2, Main Road, New Bus stand, Now rep. by Divisional Office-VI, Space No.106, Lenaine Estate, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad, Rep., by Deputy Manager. ….Appellant Vs. $ Jangiti Momuraiah and another. …. Respondents ! Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.A.Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.1: Mr.Ch.Pratap Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.2: None appeared <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.442 of 2007 Date:24.02.2010 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office At 5-2-17/2, Main Road, New Bus stand, Now rep. by Divisional Office-VI, Space No.106, Lenaine Estate, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad, Rep., by Deputy Manager. ..... Appellant AND Jangiti Momuraiah and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.A.Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.1: Mr.Ch.Pratap Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.2: None appeared The Court made the following Order: ORDER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) arises out of award, dated 16.11.2006, in M.V.O.P.No.332 of 2005, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Tract Court) Medak at Sangareddy (for short ‘the Tribunal’). Respondent No.1 - claimant is an agricultural labourer. On 19.12.2004, respondent No.1 boarded auto bearing No.AP 23 U 156, belonging to respondent No.2 and insured with the appellant - United Insurance Company Limited, at Chowdaram Village to go to Chinnakodur Village. When the said auto reached the outskirts of Chinnakodur Village, it turned turtle, resulting in causing injuries to its inmates including respondent No.1. Respondent No.1, therefore, filed M.V.O.P.No.332 of 2005, claiming Rs.1 lakh as compensation. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as total compensation under various heads viz., Rs.1,25,064/- towards loss of income for the alleged permanent disability taken at 20%, Rs.9,000/- towards medical bills and Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony. Since the claimant has claimed only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, compensation amount was limited to said sum only. At the hearing, Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, advanced his contention disputing the award to the extent of the compensation towards loss of income for the alleged partial permanent disability suffered by respondent No.1. Sri Ch.Pratap Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, however, sought to defend the award. In support of the claim of respondent No.1, he examined P.W.2 - doctor. Respondent No.1 also filed Ex.A.3 - medical certificate and Ex.A.5 - discharge summary. A perusal of Ex.A.3 - medical certificate and Ex.A.5 - discharge summary shows that the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 are serious in nature. In Ex.A.5- discharge certificate described the injuries as under: - Sub trachuntic fracture left femur - Right elbow open injury with medical EPI cohdyle fracture - Right shoulder interior dislocation Against the column ‘Treatment’, it was stated that long DHS was done and respondent No.1 was advised not to bear weight and compulsory visits periodically. However, for the first time, in his oral evidence, the doctor as PW.2 stated that the injuries are grievous in nature and the patient suffered 30% disability. Admittedly, no separate certificate to the extent of permanent disability has been given by the doctor. I, therefore, find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence on record does not prove that respondent No.1 has suffered partial permanent disability. However, from the nature of the injuries, it is quite evident that the claimant suffered serious fractures, which required treatment as indicated in Ex.A.5. At the most, it can be said that on account of the fractures, respondent No.1 would have been disabled from attending to his labour work for a period of 2 to 3 months. The Tribunal, therefore, ought to have confined the loss of earnings for a period of three months instead of awarding compensation by treating the injuries as having caused partial permanent disability. Even if respondent No.1 is stated to have lost income for three months, the same would not have been more than Rs.10,000/- for that period. In addition to that, respondent No.1 may be entitled to appropriate compensation for the injuries, he has suffered and the pain and suffering, he has undergone therefor. On an over all consideration, I am of the view that respondent No.1 is not entitled to claim more than Rs.60,000/- for suffering the injuries. Adding all other sums viz., Rs.9,000/- towards medical bills and Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony, the total compensation would come to Rs.82,000/-. The award of the Tribunal is, accordingly, modified to the extent indicated above. The M.A.C.M.A. is, accordingly, disposed of. __________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 24th February, 2010 Note: L.R. copies to be marked. (B/o) GHN