IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1717 of 2002 Between: Yelamanchili Nageswara Rao .. Appellant AND G. Raju and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 22-03-2002 in M.V.O.P.No.810 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The appellant-claimant was driving lorry No.AP-16-T-0637 on 11-02-1999 at about 5.00 A.M., when near Tagarapuvalasa bye pass road, lorry No.AP-31 T 3335, driven rashly and negligently at high speed, dashed the lorry of the appellant. The injured appellant was treated at Government Hospital, Bhimili, and then at University General Hospital, Vijayawada. Crime No.337 of 1999 was registered against the driver of lorry AP 31 T 3335 owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. The 3rd and 4th respondents are the owner and insurer of the lorry driven by the claimant. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. While the owners of the two lorries remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurers contested the claim stating that there was no negligence on the part of the other lorry driver and the claimant is not entitled to any compensation from either insurer for that reason. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.16 and B.1 during the enquiry. It rendered the impugned award stating that the evidence of PW.1, the injured, corroborated by First Information Report- Ex.A.1, probablised that the injuries were received by the claimant due to the opposite vehicle dashing against his lorry. The Tribunal found that the 2nd respondent-insurer did not improbablise the claims of PW.1 in any manner either by cross-examination or by contrary evidence. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal noted that Ex.A.8-Bunch of medical bills covered an expenditure of Rs.5,420/- and taking into account the evidence of PW.3, the doctor, about the disability suffered by PW.1 being 25% and accepting the monthly salary of PW.1 at Rs.2,000/- as claimed, the Tribunal multiplied the annual income of Rs.24,000/- by the multiplier applicable to the age of the claimant as per Bhagwan Das v. Mohd. Arif (1987 ALT 137) and considered 1/4th of the amount to be the justifiable quantum of compensation for the disability being 25%. Considering the same to be appropriate and reasonable, Rs.62,700/- was, therefore, awarded with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally, while the rest of the claim was dismissed without costs. The claimant is before this Court with this appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in not awarding Rs.5,470/- covered by medical bills or any amounts towards pain and suffering or continuing permanent disability or loss of earning capacity etc. The appeal was dismissed for default against the 1st respondent as per the order dated 25-09-2008 and none entered appearance on behalf of 3rd respondent before this Court. Heard Sri A. Rangacharyulu, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri G. Purushotham Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri R. K. Suri, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. The owners or insurers of the lorries did not question the conclusion of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident being with the driver of the lorry, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, and therefore, the liability of the respondents 1 and 2 to jointly and severally compensate the injured claimant for the consequences of the accident justly and adequately cannot be in dispute. What is in question is only the reasonable quantum of compensation to which the claimant is entitled. It is seen from the evidence on record that while the accident was on 11-02-1999, Ex.A.1-First Information Report was registered on 11-10-1999 on a report dated 10-10-1999. The version of PW.1 in the report-Ex.A.2 was that PW.1 was injured in the right ankle. Ex.A.3-Certificate also records an injury to the right ankle only on 08-10-1999 specifying that there were no other injuries. While none of the other documents throw any further light, the evidence of PW.3 Orthopaedic Surgeon about seeing PW.1 for the first time on 01-04-1999 speaks about the deformity of the right little toe and shortness of foot, apart from stiffness of foot joints. These consequences made PW.3 claim the percentage of disability to be 25% but PW.3 had to admit that the defects as stated by him are not there in the case sheet. PW.2, the cleaner of the lorry, also stated about the injury to the right leg of PW.1 and even PW.1 stated only about the injuries suffered to the right ankle and the doctors, who treated him immediately after the accident and referred to in the claim petition and in his evidence, were not examined. With such evidence forming the background for considering the claim for compensation by the claimant, the Tribunal straight away accepting the evidence of PW.3 about PW.1 suffering 25% disability due to the deformity spoken to by PW.3 not found in the case sheet itself has to be considered taking a very liberal view. Even if the said disability caused in the right foot spoken to by PW.3 is true, the same could not have been equated to the functional disability in respect of whole body with reference to the avocation of PW.1 at the same percentage, but still the Tribunal considered assessing the loss of future income at 25% of the income claimed by PW.1 to be at Rs.2,000/- per month. Though the income of Rs.2,000/- is not also supported by any document, the Tribunal accepted the interested claims of PW.1 in this regard and under such circumstances, the figure of Rs.62,700/- arrived at by the Tribunal as just and adequate compensation can be reasonably construed to cover the entitlement of the claimant to any other pecuniary and non- pecuniary damages under any other head. The object of compensation is to compensate and not to result in any unjust enrichment and probably, the Tribunal did not consider awarding any other compensation under any other heads as the nature of injury, the period of treatment and the consequences of the injuries do not deserve any higher amount. Though the Tribunal was highly liberal, the compensation is not being considered to be reduced in any manner in the absence of any challenge by any of the respondents to the claim petition. Under the circumstances, the appeal has to fail and it is accordingly dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 30-09-2010 Ksn