IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTYNINETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2722 of 2004 Between: P. Srinivas .. Appellant AND Y. Sharada and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 24-03-2003 in O.P.No.2309 of 2000 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appellant doing business in automobiles, finance and running a fast food centre claimed to be earning at Rs.10,000/- per month before the motor accident on 21-01-2000. The appellant then aged 38 years claimed to have suffered grievous injuries including fractures when the Tata Sumo jeep in which he and his family members were travelling turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. The claimant was treated at Government Hospital, Bhoom, Ahmedabad District and then at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and Yasodha Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad. Bhoom Police registered Crime No.8 of 2000 and the injury and fracture of the spinal cord confined the claimant to bed in spite of medical expenses of Rs.40,000/-. His prospects in the business were adversely effected and hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of Tata Sumo jeep. While the owner of the vehicle remained ex parte, the insurer contested the claim denying the allegations of the claimant and not admitting the driver having a valid and subsisting driving licence or the vehicle being insured with it. It alleged collusion between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle and denied any liability to pay any compensation. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.15 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award stating that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle as probablised by the evidence of the injured-PW.1 and the contents of Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2-Charge sheet and not contradicted by any other evidence. The Tribunal also concluded that the claimant sustained grievous injuries including an injury to his spinal cord in the accident, and hence, awarded Rs.25,000/- towards medical treatment including Rs.15,000/- covered by Ex.A.5-Bills. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- towards travel and extra nourishment and assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month referring to Exs.A.6 to A.9 and in the absence of any positive evidence of exact income. Concluding the loss of future earning capacity based on disability stated by PW.2 at 15%, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,17,000/- under that head, applying a multiplier of 13 for the age of 38 years of the claimant. It awarded a further sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities of life and on the total compensation of Rs.2,22,000/-, it granted interest at 6% p.a. and proportionate costs. The claimant complained against the quantum of compensation in this appeal contending that he sustained urinary infection due to the fracture of his spinal cord and a meagre sum of Rs.25,000/- was only awarded towards medical expenses as against actual expenses of Rs.40,000/-. The appellant losing his monthly income of Rs.10,000/- for six months was not appreciated and the differential amount of Rs.78,000/- has to be awarded to him. Heard Sri Molugu Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned counsel representing Sri Bathula Venkateswara Rao, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurer, while the owner of the vehicle remained ex parte before this Court also. The conclusion of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the driver of Tata Sumo jeep for the accident with his rash and negligent driving was not challenged by any party and it has become final. The owner and insurer of the said jeep are, therefore, liable to jointly and severally compensate the claimant for the consequences of the injuries suffered by him during the accident. The claimant as PW.1 stated that he sustained injury to his spinal cord and developed urinary infection. He claimed to have spent Rs.50,000/- towards treatment and to be still having pain in the left leg and also the urinary problem. He claimed to have lost his income totally for six months. He filed Exs.A.6 to A.9 to indicate his capacity to earn as claimed. PW.2, the Orthopaedician of Osmania General Hospital claiming to have treated the appellant, certified the appellant to have suffered, 15% permanent disability due to urinary problem, inability to squat on the ground for long and difficulty in climbing stairs. However, he admitted during cross-examination that PW.1 attended the court on the day of his deposition and his not issuing any disability certificate in favour of PW.1. With this background, it is seen that while the actual medical expenses proved by Ex.A.5-Bills were only to a tune of Rs.15,000/-, the Tribunal was liberal in considering that he would have incurred more expenses and directed reimbursement of Rs.25,000/-. Travel and extra nourishment to be compensated at Rs.15,000/-, pain and suffering to be compensated at Rs.25,000/- for the sole injury and grant of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities of life during the relevant period are also not on the lower side. It is true that PW.1 tried to show through Exs.A.6 to A.9 about his capacity to earn Rs.10,000/- per month as claimed. But, in the absence of any definite evidence of his income at the relevant time, the Tribunal assessed the same at Rs.5,000/- per month. An element of guess and estimate are inevitable in such assessment and it is only the wisdom and experience of the Tribunal that guides such assessment. In the absence of any definite evidence for his income, PW.1 cannot complain of his loss of earning capacity being undervalued, more so, when the disability of 15% with reference to the spinal cord was taken as the same percentage of the disability in respect of functioning of the whole body and the avocation of PW.1 by that time, which appeared to be an overestimate and not an underestimate. The loss of future earnings assessed at Rs.1,17,000/- on that basis also needs no further improvement and there appeared no other heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to which the claimant is entitled. As the compensation awarded appeared to be more than just and adequate and as grant of compensation cannot be a means of unjust enrichment, there are no grounds to interfere with the award in question. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 29-03-2011 Ksn