IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2996 of 2003 Between: Vallavai Srinu .. Appellant AND Mohd. Sayeeduddin and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.214 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, dated 28-11-2002. The appellant was travelling in DCM van AP24 T7278 as a cleaner and due to the rash and negligent driving of the van by its driver, it dashed against an opposite coming lorry near Chinthala hotel, Narkatpally on 19-09-1999. The appellant suffered fractures and grievous injuries and the police registered crime No.107 of 1999 against the DCM van driver. Hence, the appellant sought for a compensation of Rs.75,000/- from the owner and insurer of the van. While the owner of the van remained ex parte, the insurer put the claimant to strict proof of all his allegations and claimed the compensation claimed to be excessive. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the quantum of compensation and examined during the course of enquiry P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7 and B.1. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of P.W.1 corroborated by the first information report Ex.A.1 and the charge-sheet Ex.A.2, which proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the van. In assessing the compensation, the Tribunal referred to the three injuries noted in Ex.A.6 wound certificate and the evidence of the doctor P.W.2, who attended to the surgery on P.W.1 for fracture of both bones of right leg. The Tribunal considered that grant of Rs.1,000/- for two simple injuries, Rs.15,000/- towards fracture injury, Rs.2,000/- towards pain and suffering, extra nourishment and transport and Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses as per Ex.A.5 bunch of medical bills will be just and adequate. On the total compensation of Rs.24,000/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9 per cent per annum and proportionate costs. The appellant was aggrieved by the meagre compensation and claimed in this appeal that he suffered fractures to his right leg, and to right hand finger apart from loss of two teeth and other injuries all over the body. Hospitalisation was for 20 days and the appellant was earning Rs.2,500/- per month. The loss of income for the period of disablement has to be granted. The claimant, therefore, desired that the impugned award be reversed granting the balance of compensation with interest at 12 per cent per annum. Heard Sri M. Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. None entered appearance for the 1st respondent, owner of the vehicle, before this Court. In so far as the conclusion of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the DCM van by its driver leading to the accident is concerned, no party challenged the same and it has become final. The ownership of the vehicle with the 1st respondent and its subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent are never in dispute and the only question that remains for consideration is the quantum of just and adequate compensation to which the claimant is entitled from both the respondents jointly and severally. The uncontroverted evidence on record shows that for the two lacerated injuries and one commuted fracture on right leg, P.W.1 was treated by P.W.2 who stated about performing surgery for fracture of both bones of right leg. The two fractures could have been compensated with at least Rs.10,000/- each or Rs.20,000/- in total keeping in view the impact of the factures and the tortuous treatment which the claimant had to undergo before recovery, while the sum of Rs.1,000/- for two simple injuries can be maintained. No amount of damages was awarded towards loss of income. The very nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant would have disabled him from attending to his normal work at least for 6 to 8 weeks and even if the minimum wages payable to a cleaner under the Minimum Wages Act at about the relevant time were taken into account, the claimant would have been entitled to not less than Rs.4,000/- for the loss of income for two months. Towards the medical expenses, part of which were probablised by Ex.A.5 medical bills, the Tribunal was conservative in granting only Rs.5,000/- and if P.W.1 was treated as in-patient for not less than two weeks and had undergone a surgery in a private hospital, the minimum expenses he would have incurred can be considered to be not less than Rs.10,000/- and the balance of Rs.5,000/- has to be awarded under that head. Towards damage to clothing and other inevitable expenses including extra nourishment, transport, etc., the claimant could have been granted a total of Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.2,000/- as granted by the Tribunal and therefore, an overall view of the facts and circumstances may suggest that increase of compensation by about Rs.15,000/- would be granting just and adequate compensation to the claimant. In view of the length of time for which 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. Accordingly, the award, dated 28-11-2002 in O.P. No.214 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award and the appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 03-03-2011 Svv