IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4128 of 2003 Between: Mucherla Bhrathamma .. Appellant AND G. Subhash and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.423 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Nalgonda, dated 26-03-2002 passed in pursuance of the common order in O.P. Nos.423 to 427 of 2001. The factual background is that the petitioner in O.P. No.423 of 2001 and others were travelling by jeep No.AP 11E 8891 on 28- 01-2001 and near Sangaram bus stage, the jeep dashed to a neem tree due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver. The petitioner sought for a compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest at 18 per cent per annum from the date of the accident till the date of realization and costs claiming that she suffered grievous injuries in the abdomen, to the liver and all over the body. She was claimed to have been treated at K.M. hospital, Nagarjunasagar and then at Osmania general hospital, Hyderabad. She claimed that at the age of 55 years she was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and due to the injuries, she suffered permanent disablement being unable to work. Pedavoora police registered crime No.5 of 2001 about the incident and the compensation was stated to be payable jointly and severally by the owner and insurer of the jeep. While the owner of the jeep remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer contested the claim putting the claimant to strict proof of all her allegations and contending that the compensation claimed is excessive and the driver had no valid and subsisting driving licence. The liability to pay compensation is, thus, denied. On such pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation. All the connected five claim petitions arising out of the same accident were tried jointly and disposed of by a common order after examining P.Ws.1 to 5 and marking Exs.A.1 to A.16 during the joint enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, corroborated by Ex.A.1 first information report to conclude that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the jeep driver. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal noted that P.W.2, the claimant in this case, was treated at Osmania general hospital for 15 days for the injuries in the stomach and other parts of the body. From Ex.A.8 medical certificate and Ex.A.9 discharge card, the Tribunal found that she got one simple injury/laceration over the right frontal region considering that Ex.A.9 discharge card was not proved by any evidence and therefore, the Tribunal restricted the compensation only to Rs.3,000/- towards the injuries. Though Ex.A.10 bunch of medical bills was filed by the claimant, the Tribunal disbelieved the probability of the claimant taking any treatment otherwise than at Osmania general hospital spending any money. On the said compensation of Rs.3,000/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. The claimant is before this Court with this appeal contending that the claimant is entitled to the entire compensation of Rs.75,000/- claimed in view of the permanent disability suffered by her for the injuries suffered and in view of the proof afforded by Exs.A.8 to A.10. Heard Sri G. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri M. Venkat Ram Reddy, leaned counsel for the appellant and Sri B. Soma Sekhar, learned standing counsel for the insurer and none appeared for the 1st respondent/owner of the jeep before this Court also. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to notice that three other C.M.As. arising out of the same accident have been disposed of by this Court on merits enhancing the compensation. The finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the jeep driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving was not challenged by either respondent and the said finding having become final, the joint and several liability of both the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the claimant cannot be in dispute. The fact that the claimant suffered an injury in the abdomen in the accident is also not in dispute. Her hospitalization for 15 days as claimed by her as P.W.2 was not disbelieved by the Tribunal and if the injury required hospitalization of the claimant for 15 days, it could not have been considered so simple and insignificant as considered by the Tribunal even if it were to be classified as simple injury for a technical purpose. In C.M.A. No.523 of 2003 by the judgment dated 17-02- 2011, this Court had considered that the income of the deceased therein had to be taken at a minimum prescribed by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the absence of any other evidence and the same was made the basis for calculating the compensation. Similarly in C.M.A. No.4147 of 2003, this Court in its judgment, dated 28-03-2011 adopted the same reasoning and in C.M.A. No.1016 of 2003, another learned Judge enhanced the compensation to a reasonable level on the facts placed before His Lordship. The compensation of Rs.3,000/- granted by the Tribunal in this case is obviously too conservative and low and if the claimant was hospitalized for 15 days due to the injuries suffered in the accident, she would not have returned to her normal life at least for a similar period even after discharge and the loss of earnings for one month have to be calculated at Rs.1,250/- per month, which have to be paid to the claimant. During the period of hospitalization, the claimant would have incurred further expenses towards attendant charges, transport, damage to clothing, expenses of medicines which were not supplied by the hospital, extra nourishment charges, etc., even if the treatment at Osmania general hospital was free. Towards all these heads, the claimant would have been entitled to a sum of not less than Rs.5,000/- and while an element of guess and estimate are inevitable in such assessment, the claimant should also be compensated for pain and suffering she suffered due to the injury. The Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calculates such pain and suffering for a simple injury at Rs.1,000/- and for a grievous injury at Rs.5,000/- and as already stated, though the injury might have been classified as simple for the purpose of medical science, the consequences that ensued were, in fact, grievous requiring hospitalization of the claimant for 15 days. Hence, a sum of Rs.5,000/- can be granted to the claimant towards the same. The claimant did not prove that she suffered any permanent or temporary total or partial disability due to the consequences of the injuries and therefore, no compensation could have been awarded under such head. The medical bills marked as Ex.A.10 can be taken care of by the amount of Rs.5,000/- already awarded under the miscellaneous heads and on a reasonable assessment, the claimant would be, therefore, entitled to a sum of Rs.12,000/- rounding off the compensation to that figure. In view of the distance of time for which the interest has to be paid on the enhanced compensation, the same can be restricted to 6 per cent per annum, while proportionate costs shall follow suit. Therefore, the award, dated 26-03-2002 in O.P. No.423 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Nalgonda is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.9,000/- (Rupees nine thousand only) with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit or payment and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award. The appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21-04-2011 Svv