HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 912 of 2004 JUDGMENT: United Insurance Company is the appellant who filed the appeal challenging the quantum of compensation granted in MVOP NO. 1933 of 2000 dated 30.12.2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation of Rs. 3,25,000/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 23.12.1999 at about 11.15 PM the claimant was proceeding by walk on the left side of the road near Tarnaka fly over bridge, the Mazda Van of the 1st respondent bearing No. MP-23D-8308 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and knocked him down. As a result of which the claimant sustained grievous injuries and also an injury to his head and passers by immediately shifted him to Gandhi Hospital where he took first aid. His relatives shifted him to CDR Hospital, where he was treated as inpatient for 20 days. Due to injuries, he has been getting frequent head-ache and he is unable to attend to his regular work. Hence, he laid a claim for a total compensation of Rs. 3,25,000/-. 3. The first respondent remained ex-parte and the 2nd respondent filed a counter stating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent’s vehicle by its driver and the accident took place due to negligence of the claimant himself and the permanent injuries sustained by the claimant are false and the claim is highly excessive. 4. On behalf of claimant, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-11 were marked. On behalf of respondents no witness was examined but Ex. B-1 policy was marked. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the accident in question which resulted in injuries to the petitioner was due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent’s motor vehicle by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom 3. To what relief? 6. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner received injuries as the Swaraj Mazda hit him from behind and therefore, the principle res ipsa loquitor applies to the facts of the case with all force. Coming to the injures sustained by the petitioner the Tribunal observed that Ex. A-3 discharge summary issued by CDR hospital shows that the petitioner sustained following injures: (1) Laceration over the forehead (midline) measuring 7x1x2 cms (sutured at Gandhi Hospital) (2) Comminuted depressed fracture on frontal region (right side) with brain matter oozing out. (3) Ecchymosed of right eye 7. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for permanent disability and for medical expenses at Rs. 1,68,427/- taking into consideration that the claimant must have been out of work at least for 4 months due to injuries received by him. An amount of Rs. 16,000/- was awarded towards loss of income taking into consideration of Ex.A –6 salary certificate issued by Kurnool Cylinders Private Limited and it shows that he was working in that company since February 1999 on monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/-. An amount of Rs. 5,000/- was granted towards attendant charges, transportation and extra nourishment and Rs. 10,000/- for simple injuries and Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering totaling Rs. 3,14,427/-. The Tribunal directed that respondents 1 and 2 therein to pay the said compensation jointly and severally with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said compensation, Insurance Company preferred this appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company contended that the first respondent- applicant has not filed any disability certificate and the doctor has not stated anything with regard to disability and in the absence of any documentary or positive evidence granting a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of permanent disability is highly exorbitant and liable to be reduced. He also contended that the court below erred in granting a sum of Rs. 1,68,427/- towards medical expenses when the claim of the claimant is low 9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal granting a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head “permanent disability’ apart form granting Rs. 1,68,427/- towards medical expenses is just and proper? 10. As seen from the record, Ex. A-2 discharge summary issued by Srinivasa Hospital shows that the claimant underwent treatment in that hospital as inpatient from 7.2.2002 to 11.2.2002 for vomiting and it is his version that due to injury to his brain he has been getting frequent headache. Ex. A-4 is the recent CT scan of brain reports. It shows that still the claimant has been feeling the after effects of the injury to his brain. As such there is nothing improbable in his using medicines constantly even after the discharge from CDR hospital. Therefore, awarding Rs. 1,68,427/- towards medical expenses is just and proper and I see no reason to interfere with this finding of the Tribunal. 11. As far as the permanent disability is concerned, Ex. A-3 discharge summary issued by CDR Hospital shows that the claimant sustained Laceration over the forehead (midline) measuring 7x1x2 cms, Comminuted depressed fracture on frontal region (right side) with brain matter oozing out and Ecchymosed of right eye. The claimant also marked his present photograph as Ex. A-5, which shows an ugly depression on his forehead and it affected the normal beauty of his face for the rest of his life, and he has to carry on that disability. Therefore taking into consideration the gravity of the injury, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards permanent disability. In my considered opinion, the earnings of the claimant are not affected with the disability and he is doing his regular duties and he is leading normal life and the disability affected the normal beauty of his face only. Therefore, in my considered opinion, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards permanent disability would meet the ends of justice. 12. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part reducing the compensation amount from Rs. 1,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards permanent disability to Rs. 50,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs. 3,14,427 to Rs. 2,64,427/- (3,14,427 – 50,000/-) As far as the granting of interest is concerned, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% is reduced to 7.5%. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:17.06.2010 KA