IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH AT HYDERABAD. Dated: November 22, 2010. Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy C.M.A.No. 2241 of 2003 Between: Sunkara Venkataramaiah ..Petitioner And Myna Narasaiah and others ..Respondents PSR, J. C.M.A.No. 2241 of 2003 Judgment This appeal is filed by the petitioner against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad in O.P.No. 296 of 1999 dated:30.01.2003. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein would be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 18.2.1999 at about 5.00 PM, he was traveling in van bearing No.AP-25-T-5251 from Metpally towards Nizamabad. When the van reached Rajeshwararaopet village, another van bearing No.AP-15-U-2831 came in opposite direction and dashed the van in which the petitioner was traveling. Both the drivers were rash and negligent. On account of the accident, the petitioner suffered fracture of ribs, legs and head etc. He was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Metpally, from where he was shifted to District Head quarters Hospital, Nizamabad and thereafter he was treated at Pragathi Nursing Home, Nizamabad. The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.2.00 Lakhs. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 remained ex parte. The second respondent filed its counter alleging that the accident took place only on account of the negligence of the driver of vehicle No.AP-25-T- 5251 and that it is not liable to pay any compensation. Fourth respondent insurance company also filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial: i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation sought for? ii) To what relief the petitioner is entitled to? 5. In support of his case, the petitioner got himself examined as PW-1; the doctor who treated him was examined as PW-2 and Exs A-1 to A-14 are marked. On behalf of the respondents RW-1 was examined and Exs B-1 to B-4 were marked. Apart from the above, Exs C-1 and C-2 were also marked. 6. On the basis of the above material, the tribunal below awarded compensation of Rs.13,758-00 payable by the first respondent and dismissed the claim as against respondent Nos. 2 to 4, against which the present appeal is filed by the petitioner. 7. Now the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even assuming that the journey of the petitioner in vehicle No. AP-25-T-5251, which was insured with the third respondent is illegal, he is entitled for compensation as against the second respondent, the insurer of the vehicle No.AP-15-U-2831 and the lower tribunal erred in disallowing the claim against the second respondent, basing on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Asha Rani[1] 8. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent is not able to seriously dispute this position. Even if there is violation of conditions of the policy or even some irregularity is there, the insurer of the vehicle bearingNo.AP-25-T5251 in which the petitioner was traveling may not be liable for compensation; but with regard to another vehicle that dashed the vehicle, the insurer of that vehicle cannot be said to be not liable for compensation on account of the irregularity with regard to the vehicle in which the petitioner was traveling at the time of the accident. Thus I hold that the second respondent-insurer is liable for compensation. 9. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the case sheet produced from the Government Hospital (Ex C-2) shows that the petitioner suffered fracture of seven ribs. Ex A-2, the discharge card of the Government Hospital, Nizamabad also shows the same. In case, the other material, with regard to the local treatment in private hospital, is not believed also, the fact remains that the petitioner suffered fracture of ribs that can prima facie be believed on the basis of Ex A-2 and Ex C-2. Thus, it is a case of fracture of seven ribs. Though the fracture of ribs, itself, in the absence of any damage to internal organs, cannot be said to be injury of serious nature, still, because of fracture of ribs the petitioner must have suffered pain and might have taken treatment for substantial period, during which he must have lost his income. 10. The petitioner was said to be earning around Rs.4,000-00 per month during the period of accident. As such the amount awarded by the lower tribunal can be only towards of loss of income during the period of treatment and immediately thereafter and the petitioner is entitled for compensation towards pain and suffering, expenditure for treatment, including transportation charges and the disability whatsoever, he suffered. 11. Considering all these circumstances, another sum of Rs.30,000-00 towards compensation would be appropriate. 12. In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The petitioner is awarded another sum of Rs.30,000-00, apart from Rs.13,758.00 awarded by the lower tribunal. He is entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount. The petitioner is also entitled to proportionate costs. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. November 22, 2010. *BVS [1] 2003 (2) SCC 223