*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY + CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2940 of 2003 And CROSS OBJECTIONS % Dated: 18-11-2010 # Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Nizamabad. … Appellant VERSUS $ Shaik Akhtar & another. … Respondents ! Counsel for the appellant: None ^ Counsel for the respondents: Sri P. Radhive Reddy <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2940 of 2003 And CROSS OBJECTIONS Between: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Nizamabad. ..... Appellant AND Shaik Akhtar & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the appellant : None Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri P. Radhive Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2940 of 2003 And CROSS OBJECTIONS JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of award dated 17.12.2002 in O.P.No.590 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short, “the Tribunal”). The Oriental Insurance Company, respondent No.2 in the abovementioned O.P., is the appellant. Respondent No.1, who was the driver of jeep bearing registration No. AP 15E 6633, suffered injuries while the jeep he was driving collided with lorry bearing No.HR.47/3474 insured with the appellant. Respondent No.1 has claimed Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for the injuries he has suffered. The Tribunal has, however, awarded Rs.70,000/- comprising Rs.40,000/- towards the injuries, Rs.20,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/- for past and future pain and suffering. At the hearing, there is no representation for the appellant. I have heard Sri P. Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the record. In support of his claim that he has sustained injuries, respondent No.1 has filed and marked injury certificate as Ex.A2 and disability certificate as Ex.A4. Apart from examining himself as PW.1, respondent No.1 has examined Dr. L. Ramulu as PW.2. At the outset, it requires to take judicial notice of the fact that the said Ramulu appeared as a stock witness in many a case pertaining to accident claims and has attained notoriety. Be that as it may, according to PW.2’s oral evidence, he has examined respondent No.1 and issued Exs.A2 and A4 certificates. In his cross-examination he has admitted that laceration can heal within a few days. In Ex.A2, the following injuries have been noted. “1. Laceration over the forehead about 5cm x 2cm depth. 2. Clotted blood in both the nostrils. 3. Laceration on front of the neck 1cm x 1cm depth and 4. A laceration below the chin.” In my opinion, Ex.A4, disability certificate, overlooks the nature of the injuries recorded in Ex.A2, injury certificate. It defies logic and reason that laceration injuries cause permanent partial disability. As noted above, PW.2 himself admitted that laceration injuries can heal in a few days. Therefore, no credence whatsoever can be given to Ex.A4, purported permanent disability certificate. Ex.A2 has not described any injury as grievous in nature. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has failed to deal with these aspects and has made a perfunctory approach by awarding in all Rs.40,000/- “for the injuries sustained by respondent No.1”. In cases of injuries, pain and suffering and loss of income are two permissible heads of compensation. The Tribunal has failed to apportion as to which part of the amount of Rs.40,000/- relates to which of these two heads, though another sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards past and future pain and suffering. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.20,000/- for medical expenses and extra nourishment. No medical bills have been filed by respondent No.1. Equally respondent No.1 has failed to adduce any evidence to show that he has spent substantial amount towards extra nourishment. Having regard to the simple nature of injuries, even going by Ex.A2, injury certificate, there was absolutely no warrant for the Tribunal to award Rs.70,000/- towards compensation for the injuries suffered by respondent No.1. Considering the fact that this Court has directed depositing of 50% of the awarded amount, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is accordingly reduced to half. The award is set aside to the extent of the remaining half of the amount. Subject to the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed and the cross objections filed by respondent No.1 - claimant are dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.11.2010 ES LR copies to be marked.