IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.2566 of 2007 DATE:24.12.2010 Between: Minor C.Abilash …… Appellant And K.Kalyan Chakravarthy and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.2566 of 2007 JUDGMENT: The injured/claimant is the appellant. Dissatisfied with quantum of compensation of Rs.1,88,545/- awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi in M.V.O.P.No.213 of 2005 as against claim of Rs.7,00,000/-, this appeal is filed. In this appeal, there is no dispute about factum of motor accident in which the minor injured suffering injuries. Since the claim petition was filed before the lower Tribunal under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, the Act), the question of rashness or negligence of the driver in driving the accident vehicle, is not relevant. 2) The lower Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.78,750/- towards permanent disability to the extent of 35%, Rs.6,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.68,795/- towards medical expenditure, Rs.20,000/- towards transport expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment and attendant charges, totalling Rs.1,88,545/-. 3) It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that while referring to Ex.A-10 deposit receipts of making deposit in Appollo Hospitals, the lower Tribunal noted the amount as Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/-. The deposited amount does not represent medical expenditure. Initially when the patient enters into any corporate hospital, deposit is received and final medical bill will be issued at the time of discharge, in which the deposited amount will be adjusted. Therefore, it is immaterial what the lower Tribunal had taken as the deposited amount. The lower Tribunal basing on medical bills and receipts summed the medical expenditure as Rs.68,795/-. 4) In this appeal, the appellant filed two certificates issued by Appollo First Med Hospitals, Chennai to the affect that the appellant incurred Rs.1,39,474/- and Rs.10,794/- respectively towards medical expenditure. Basing on those two documents, it is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the lower Tribunal should have granted the total amount of medical expenditure covered by the bills irrespective of the computerised bills containing no signatures. On the other hand, the counsel for the insurance company contended that the claim petition was filed by the injured/claimant under Section 163-A of the Act and that therefore, as per Schedule-II of the Act medical expenditure cannot exceed Rs.15,000/- even in case of proof by producing vouchers and bills. Item no.3(iv) of Schedule-II reads: “(iv) Medical Expenses-actual expenses incurred before death supported by bills/vouchers but not exceeding -Rs. 15,000” 5) Since the petitioner claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the Act on the basis of structured formula, the lower Tribunal cannot award any compensation over and above prescribed in Schedule-II of the Act under various heads. The law relating to grant of compensation under Section 166 of the Act cannot be made applicable to a claim made under Section 163-A of the Act. Though the lower Tribunal granted medical expenditure of Rs.68,795/-, the insurance company did not file any appeal questioning the same as one which is not provided by Schedule-II of the Act. Having regard to various heads of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal basing on the structured formula, the appellant is not entitled for any more compensation than that was awarded by the lower Tribunal. The compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable and is more generous than the structured formula contained in Schedule-II of the Act. 6) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 24, 2010 ksh