IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A.No.3747 of 2003 DATE:09.12.2010 Between: Shaik Khasim …… Appellant And Benamukkala Venkata Ramana and 2 others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A.No.3747 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded at Rs.54,000/- as against his claim of Rs.1,00,000/- by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur in M.V.O.P.No.372 of 1999 by award dated 09.04.2003, the injured claimant filed this appeal. The lower Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry bearing No.AP 7 U 5688 resulting in injuries to the petitioner/appellant. 2) The lower Tribunal awarded Rs.51,000/- towards disability, Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.1,000/- towards medical expenses, totalling Rs.54,000/-. The lower Tribunal did not award any compensation under other heads of non-pecuniary compensation. In the accident, the claimant suffered fracture of upper 1/3 of both bones of left leg. The injured was working as cleaner of lorry. P.W-2 is Civil Surgeon Orthopaedics in Government General Hospital, Guntur. The injured was admitted in that hospital on 21.09.1997 and was discharged on 18.10.1997. P.W-2 deposed that he saw the petitioner again on 16.12.2002 and after checking X-ray taken on left leg, he found that fracture of both bones united clinically and radiologically. He says that there is stiffness of left knee joint and that present disability is 35%. He did not state whether the said disability is a permanent one to the extent of 35%. He only certifies present disability as on the date of his examination on 16.12.2002. As per P.W-2’s evidence, skin grafting was also done on upper 1/3 of left leg. It appears that the date of skin grafting was given as 01.08.1997 must be a mistake because the accident took place on 04.09.1997 and the injured was admitted in Guntur hospital on 21.09.1997. Skin grafting must have been done on 01.10.1997 as noted in the petition filed in the lower Tribunal. When there was no injury to left knee joint, P.W-2 could not explain as to how there was stiffness of left knee joint resulting in present disability of 35%. It is contended that the said stiffness may be due to skin grafting. But skin grafting was also done for upper 1/3 of left leg and not for knee portion. P.W-2 in cross- examination deposed that fractures suffered by the petitioner were united without any mal-union. P.W-2 did not find any shortening of leg after union of both bones of left leg. He says that he followed Mc Bright scale for giving the disability suffered by the petitioner. In those circumstances, the lower Tribunal took disability of the petitioner as 20% and awarded the compensation on that basis. In my opinion, the lower Tribunal was generous in finding 20% disability to the petitioner, having regard to above assessment of P.W-2’s evidence by this Court. Even though the petitioner claimed his salary as Rs.1,200/- per month in his evidence as P.W-1 and even though he gave his salary as Rs.600/- per month before the hospital authorities as noted in the case sheet, the lower Tribunal was generous enough in assessing income of the injured at Rs.1,500/- per month over and above P.W-1’s claim. I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any more compensation than Rs.51,000/- granted by the lower Tribunal towards his alleged disability. 3) The appellant’s counsel placing reliance on Islavath Nama V. S.A.Raheem[1] and G.V.Sathya Sesha Sai V. M.Siva Leela[2] of this Court contended that the petitioner is entitled for non pecuniary compensation of atleast Rs.20,000/-. As pointed earlier, the lower Tribunal did not award compensation for the injury suffered by him including pain and suffering etc., I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards fracture of both bones of left leg which amount includes for pain and suffering. The question of granting further amount towards loss of amenities does not arise because compensation is awarded for the disability irrespective of proof of loss of pecuniary value to that extent. The amount of Rs.51,000/- granted towards disability is inclusive of both pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary disadvantages flowing from the disability. 4) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed without costs altering the compensation amount from Rs.54,000/- to Rs.74,000/-. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 09, 2010 ksh [1] 1987(2) ALT 378 [2] 1988(1) ALT 14