IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.501 of 2002 Between: Alluru Venkata Subbaiah …Appellant AND Yadi Reddy And others …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.501 of 2002 JUDGMENT: 1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation against the award in O.P.No.633 of 1996 dated 27.11.2001 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity). In this appeal, appellant is the claimant, first respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.AP 12 T 2433 and the second respondent is the Insurance Company with whom the vehicle was insured. The appellant is seeking Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him the accident that occurred on 20.05.1994. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant engaged a tractor to transport grass to his dairy farm from Kasumuru Village. The tractor developed some trouble midway to his village and was stopped at GNT Road near Chemudugunta village, when the offending vehicle bearing registration No.AP 12 T 2433, being driven by its driver Pulivella Venkata Reddy in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the tractor. The appellant sustained fractures and other injuries and, accordingly, he took treatment for the same in Vijaya Hospital and also in MIOT Hospital, Madras. He claimed that he suffered grievous injuries, which caused loss of his earnings. He also claims that he spent huge amounts for his treatment. The first respondent – owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte and the second respondent – Insurance Company resisted the claim that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the offending vehicle was not insured with them. 3. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of the witnesses and based on the same, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. This issue is not under challenge in this appeal by the respondents. The Tribunal restricted the total compensation to Rs.67,200/- against Rs.2,50,000/- sought by the claimant. It awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.3,000/- towards loss of amenities. The Tribunal, by taking into consideration 10% disability, awarded Rs.19,200/- towards the same. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant filed the present appeal. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal ignored medical bills filed as Ex.A.4, which reflected the actual expenditure incurred by the appellant towards his treatment; that the Tribunal was not right in disbelieving the medical bills on the ground that the bills were issued by Corporate Hospitals; that the Tribunal was not right in suspecting the genuineness of the appellants only on the ground that the dates mentioned on three medical bills overlapped with each other; that the bills issued by MIOT Hospital, Madras subsequently for his admission and treatment from 02.06.1994 onwards, were not taken into consideration; that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the appellant suffered only 10% disability. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal rightly discarded the medical bills and the compensation awarded by it is just and reasonable. 6. The occurrence of the accident is not in dispute. The appellant suffering grievous injuries and taking treatment in Vijaya Hopsital and MIOT Hospital, Madras is also not in dispute. Ex.A.2 is the Wound Certificate dated 29.06.1994 (wrongly mentioned as 21.05.1994 in the Tribunal’s order), which shows that the appellant suffered fracture of 1/3rd right femur in addition to other injuries. To speak about the injuries, the appellant examined P.W.2 – Doctor who treated him in Apollo Hospital, Nellore for removal of plates from the right thigh of the appellant. P.W.2, in his deposition, deposed that the appellant suffered fracture of right femur and developed pus through multiple holes and the plate from the right thigh of the appellant was removed on 21.03.1998. The appellant was discharged from the hospital on 06.04.1998 with an advice of daily dressing and usage of medicines. P.W.2 opined that the appellant suffered 25% disability and that he could not walk and work as a normal person as before. The respondents did not rebut the evidence of P.W.2. In the absence of any rebuttal of the evidence adduced by the respondents, the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be disbelieved. Thus, his opinion that the appellant suffered 25% disability is liable to be accepted and the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant suffered 10% disability is, therefore, without any basis and is not acceptable. I therefore, hold that the appellant suffered 25% disability. 7. Regarding medical bills, The Tribunal disbelieved medical bills bearing Nos.10317 for Rs.155/-, receipt No.18722 dated 22.06.1994 for Rs.500/- and the receipts dated 18.06.1994, 21.06.1994 and 26.06.1994. It also disbelieved the advance receipt from MIOT Hospital for an amount of Rs.10,000/-, another receipt No.13237 dated 02.06.1994 and Bill No.69245 from Apollo Pharmacy, Nellore. Although the Tribunal eschewed the above bills from consideration, the Tribunal has not assigned valid reasons for accepting the other bills. The reasoning of the Tribunal that the corporate bills cannot be believed is beyond comprehension. Admittedly, as per the finding of the Tribunal, the appellant was admitted in Vijaya Hospital Madras on 30.05.1994 and discharged on 01.06.1994. Subsequently, he took treatment in MIOT Hospital, Madras from 02.06.1994 onwards. The appellant also produced receipt of MIOT Hospital dated 02.06.1994 for Rs.13,000/-, Receipt of Apollo Hospital, Nellore for Rs.1,000/-, Receipt of Apollo Hospital, Nellore, dated 16.03.1998 for Rs.1,000/- , Receipt from the Blood Bank for Rs.200/-, Receipt of Apollo Hospital, Nellore dated 02.04.1998 for Rs.2,000/-, Receipt of MIOT Hospital, Madras dated 15.09.1994 for Rs.17,650/-, Receipt dated 25,06,1994 for Rs.500/-, Receipt dated 17.06.1994 for Rs.400/-, Receipt dated 15.06.1994 for Rs.6,400/-, Receipt dated 15.06.1994 for Rs.6,250/-, Receipt dated 15.06.1994 for Rs.1,500/- and Receipt dated 06.06.1994 for Rs.24,000/-. These bills reflect that the appellant spent a sum of Rs.73,900/- for his treatment in hospitals. The second respondent did not dispute the genuineness of these bills. Apart from this expenditure, evidence is clear that the appellant also incurred some expenditure in the year 1998 while undergoing treatment for removal of plates from his right thigh in the Apollo Hospital, Nellore. As the bills referred to above discloses that the appellant spent Rs.73,900/- in MIOT Hospital itself, I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled for Rs.73,900/- rounded of to Rs.74,000/- towards medical expenses. But the Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- only towards medical bills. Thus, the appellant is entitled for the difference amount of Rs.44,000/- on this account. 8. The Tribunal calculated the loss of earning based upon 10% disability by taking into consideration the income of the appellant at Rs.200/- per month. As per the un-rebutted evidence of P.W.2 noted above, the total disability should be 25%. Taking the same into consideration, the loss of earning can be calculated at Rs.500/- per month and Rs.6,000/- per annum. Applying the same multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, the total loss of earnings would be Rs.48,000/- whereas, the Tribunal awarded Rs.19,200/- only. Thus, the appellant is entitled for the differential amount Rs.28,800/-. The award of the Tribunal towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities and for filing false affidavit, need not be interfered with. 9. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.72,800/- (Rs.44,000/- + 28,800/-). The appellant is also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of this order till the date of realization. 10. Accordingly, the award in O.P.No.633 of 1996 dated 27.11.2001 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore, is modified to the extent indicated above. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI February 11, 2010 Bvv