HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A.No.235 of 2005 DT. 02.12.2010 Between: Abdul Khaliq Appellant Vs. 1. K. Rajeshwar Rao 2. The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Nizamabad. ………….Respondents JUDGMENT: Initially, the appellant/claimant had filed O.P.No.423 of 1997 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident. However, the Tribunal by its order, dated 27.06.2003, has awarded a total compensation of Rs.76,500/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. The facts of the case in brief are that on 11.05.1997, at about 6.30 a.m., when the appellant/claimant was proceeding on his cycle at Mayuri Hotel on NH5, Nagpur – Hyderabad road, one D.C.M. truck bearing No.AP 1/T-555 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came at high speed and dashed against the cycle, due to which, the appellant/claimant fell down and front wheel of D.C.M. truck ran over right part of his body, causing fracture injuries; that he also suffered injuries to his head, resulting in skull fracture. He also lost four teeth and other teeth got loosened; that he also suffered injuries all over his body. He was shifted to Government hospital, Nirmal and from there to Government Headquarters hospital, Nizamabad and from there to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment. Hence, the claimant filed O.P. No.423 of 1997 petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The first respondent owner of the accident D.C.M. truck remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 - New India Assurance Company filed written statement denying the averments of claim petition including the age, earnings, avocation, the manner of accident and involvement of the vehicle therein and alleging that the driver was not having valid and subsisting driving licence and the vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company, as such, it is not liable to pay any compensation and that the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- is excessive and exorbitant and the same may be dismissed. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. AP 1/T-555 by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what just amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? To substantiate the claim, the claimant got himself examined as PW-1 besides examining Dr.L.Ramulu as PW-2, who issued Ex.A-7 Disability Certificate and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-11; Exs.C-1 and C-2 were marked through the Court. However, no witnesses were examined nor were marked any documents on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal, after considering the entire material on record, answered the first issue in favour of the appellant/claimant and against the respondents holding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP1/T-555, as such, the appellant/claimant was held to be entitled to claim compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident and since Ex.A10- Insurance Policy was in force by the date of the accident, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are held to be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, and ultimately, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.76,500/- as already stated herein above in para No.1. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that as per Ex.A-3-Wound Certificate, the appellant/claimant has suffered six injuries, out of which, injury Nos.1, 2 and 5 are grievous in nature and other injuries are simple in nature. However, the Tribunal, considering the nature of injuries, which are grievous in nature, and also considering the period of treatment as well as the disability suffered by the appellant/claimant, has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards disability, without awarding any amount of compensation towards grievous as well as simple injuries as mentioned in Ex.A-3 - Wound Certificate. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company that PW-2- medical witness, who is alleged to have treated the appellant/claimant soon after the accident, is not a Doctor. Therefore, his evidence as to the nature of injuries as well as the disability as stated in Ex.A-7 is neither relevant nor worthy of consideration; that in fact, it was Dr.Vyavahare, Dental Surgeon, Nizamabad, who treated the appellant/claimant for the injuries suffered by him in the accident, and who issued Ex.A-3, but he was not examined; that of course, the subsequent treatment was done by other Doctors. However, it is contended that since the Doctor, who is alleged to have treated the appellant, was not examined to prove Ex.A-3, the Tribunal was justified in not awarding any compensation towards the actual injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant; that the Tribunal is justified in awarding Rs.50,000/- towards disability. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that since no compensation is awarded towards future loss of income, the Tribunal is not justified in awarding only Rs.50,000/- towards disability. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant-claimant and the treatment undergone by him for the said injuries, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant-claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards two grievous injuries and another Rs.10,000/- towards other simply injuries. The compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded towards disability is enhanced to Rs.75,000/-. The amount of Rs.20,000/-, which was awarded towards pain and suffering, is enhanced to Rs.35,000/- and an amount of Rs.5000/- awarded towards future medical expenses for removal of the rod is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- while maintaining the amount of Rs.1,463/- awarded towards medical expenses incurred by the petitioner for his treatment. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.76,500/- which was awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,76,500/-. However, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. is liable to be reduced and the same is hereby reduced to 7.5% p.a. on the enhanced amount in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other decisions in this regard. With the above modification of the impugned order dated 27.06.2003, the appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ________________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J 2nd December, ​2010 Tjs/bcj