IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.467 of 2003 Between: Kandipalli Sathibabu .. Appellant AND Ranga Gandhi & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.467 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.O.P.No.912 of 1997, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 25.01.2001. 2. The appellant and three others were going to Nakkapalle from Yelamanchili on a tanker lorry No.AEK 2099 on 27.07.1996 and at about 3.30 p.m., the lorry driven rashly and negligently dashed against a stationed lorry near Venkateswara Theatre, Yelamanchili, due to which the appellant received injuries. He was claimed to have sustained fractures to his right wrist and injuries all over the body for which he was treated at King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Hence, he sought for a compensation of Rs.63,000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry. 3. While the first respondent/owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the second respondent/insurer denied all the claims of the claimant and contended that the appellant was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in the lorry, the goods vehicle, in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The second respondent/insurer also contended that the driver, owner and insurer of the other lorry also are necessary parties. 4. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the appellant for compensation and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 during the enquiry. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of P.W.1 corroborated by Ex.A-1-First Information Report and Ex.A-3-Motor Vehicles Inspector’s Report and concluding that in the absence of examination of the driver of the lorry or any other eye witness, the accident has to be concluded to have occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry. The Tribunal noted that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 discloses that P.W.1 received injuries in the accident. But Ex.A-2-Wound Certificate reveals only three simple injuries without any bony injury, while Ex.A-4-Disability Certificate issued on 06.09.2000 in respect of the injuries sustained in the accident on 27.07.1996 did not reveal the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant. The Tribunal opined that the evidence of P.W.2 did not disclose as to the location of the fracture on the body of the appellant and Ex.A-4-Disability Certificate, therefore, cannot be relied on. For the three simple injuries mentioned in Ex.A-2-Wound Certificate, the Tribunal awarded Rs.6,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.1,000/- towards medicines and extra nourishment and Rs.500/- for loss of earnings. The Tribunal awarded interest at 12% per annum and proportionate costs. The Tribunal made both the respondents jointly and severally liable for the compensation following CHITTAVENI SIDDAVVA AND OTHERS VS. K. KASTOORI AND OTHERS[1] which was again following NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY VS. SHIR SATPAL SINGH[2]. 6. The appellant challenged the said award contending that Ex.A-4-Disability Certificate ought to have been accepted and the entire compensation as claimed should have been granted on the basis of 30% disability certified in Ex.A-4-Disability Certificate. 7. Heard Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel representing Sri T.M.K. Chaitanya, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer. The appeal was dismissed for default against the first respondent/owner of the lorry by the order of this Court, dated 19.09.2002. 8. In so far as the finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident with the lorry driver due to his rash and negligent driving is concerned, no party has challenged the same and it has become final. The ownership of the lorry with the first respondent and its subsisting insurance with the second respondent were not disputed and though the impugned award was rendered with reference to SATPAL SINGH’s case (supra 2) which was later found to be not laying down the correct law by the Apex Court, the insurer or the owner of the vehicle did not challenge the impugned award and hence, it is not susceptible to interference on that ground. 9. The only question that remains for consideration is the quantum of just and adequate compensation to which the claimant/appellant is entitled. 10. It is seen from Ex.A-1-First Information Report that the earliest version mentioned only about the four persons travelling in the lorry and the cleaner receiving injuries, but it did not specify the nature of the injuries. Ex.A-2-Wound Certificate issued on 17.10.1996 about the examination of the injured immediately after the accident clearly specified that there were only three simple injuries and x-ray of the right wrist without any bony injury. The three lacerated injuries as described in Ex.A-2 do not appear to be capable of leading to any serious adverse consequences to the physical state of P.W.1 later. While Ex.A-4- Disability Certificate was claimed to have been issued by P.W.2 on examination of P.W.1 on 06.09.2000, it was more than four years after the accident and the injury allegedly found by P.W.2 on examination of P.W.1 was not specified to be possibly of that age. The Professor of Orthopaedics, P.W.2, was not clear in Ex.A-4 or his evidence as to the correlation between the wounds found in Ex.A-2-Wound Certificate and the wounds found by him at the time of his physical examination more than four years later. The Tribunal cannot be considered to have gone wrong if it refused to act upon the evidence of P.W.2 in this regard, more so, when there is absolutely no evidence about P.W.1 taking any treatment in between. He was not admitted as an inpatient in the hospital immediately after the accident for the simple injuries and the claims by P.W.1 about receiving fractures on the right hand wrist and right leg and injuries on the forehead and other parts of the body were not corroborated by the medical evidence. His claim of being treated as inpatient for nine months has no support from any medical record and he did not state about going to P.W.2 for any purpose other than obtaining Ex.A-4-Disability Certificate. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.1,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment and Rs.500/- towards loss of earnings is on the liberal side not requiring any further enhancement. The appeal has to consequently fail. 11. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 3rd February, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.467 of 2003 Date: 3rd February, 2011 KL [1] 2000 (3) ALD 306 [2] JT 1999 (9) SC 416