IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4633 of 2003 Between: Gudugunta Venugopal .. Appellant AND Techaids, New Delhi rep. by its Manager and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.144 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nellore, dated 01-10-2002. The appellant was travelling in their company car on official business on the instructions of his employer on 20-11-1996 and at about 8 A.M. near the four road junction, the driver drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed an opposite coming lorry. The claimant claimed to have sustained fractures to his nose and other injuries all over his body and he took treatment for six months, but still became a permanent partially disabled person. He claimed to be earning Rs.5,000/- per month as an agent with his employer and hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the owner and the insurer of the car. While the car owner remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer denied the allegations of the claimant and contended that the vehicle was not insured with it and the persons connected with the lorry are also proper and necessary parties to the proceedings. The compensation claimed was contended to be excessive and therefore, the insurer desired the claim to be negatived. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident, the necessity of impleading the owner and insurer of the lorry, the existence of a valid and subsisting insurance and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation. During the enquiry, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4, while insurance policy was marked as Ex.B.1. 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 charge-sheet about the rash and negligent driving of the car leading to the accident. The Tribunal also noted that the car driver was convicted on admission by the Magistrate, which confirms such a conclusion. Consequently, the Tribunal held the owner and the insurer of the lorry to be not necessary parties and from Ex.B.1, it held the insurance policy to be valid and subsisting at the relevant time. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal referred to the oral evidence of P.W.1 about being admitted first in the Government hospital, Chittoor for one day and later being treated in a private clinic as in-patient for two months. The Tribunal referred to Ex.A.2 wound certificate disclosing only two simple injuries, while four simple injuries were sutured by a private practitioner. It also referred to Ex.A.4 bunch of medical bills for about Rs.6,000/- in total and awarded Rs.2,000/- each towards medical expenses and two simple injuries and Rs.1,000/- towards pain and suffering. On the said sum of Rs.5,000/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9 per cent per annum and proportionate costs. The claimant being aggrieved by the grant of meagre compensation, preferred the present appeal contending that the entire compensation as claimed should have been awarded in view of the wound certificate showing grievous injuries, bills showing the medical expenses and the quantum of salary and nature of employment of the claimant who was disabled from 20-11-1996 to 20-05-1997. Sri A. Jagan, learned counsel representing Sri Swarna Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Haribabu Manne, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent are heard, while the 1st respondent remained unrepresented before this Court also. The conclusions of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the car driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving, the absence of necessity of the owner and the insurer of the lorry in this proceeding and the existence of valid and subsisting insurance policy for the vehicle of the 1st respondent with the 2nd respondent are not challenged by any party and the only question that remains, therefore, for consideration is the just and adequate compensation to which the claimant/appellant is entitled in respect of the injuries suffered in the accident and their consequences. The claimant had not chosen to examine either the doctor, who had seen him first at the Government General hospital, Chittoor, or the private doctor with whom he claimed to have undergone treatment for a considerable time. He claimed as P.W.1 that he sustained a fracture above the nose, a cut injury on the forehead and simple injuries all over the body. He claimed to have taken treatment for two months as in-patient and four months as out-patient spending Rs.20,000/-. The earliest version in Ex.A.1 first information report only mentioned about the inmates of the car sustaining bleeding injuries and Ex.A.2 wound certificate shows that there were four sutured wounds, a lacerated injury on the inner side of the right eye lid and bleeding from nostrils, which were noticed by the medical officer when P.W.1 was examined on 20-11-1996. The doctor was of the opinion that injury Nos.5 and 6 were simple and refused to express any opinion on the sutured wounds. However, the description of the sutured wounds does not appear to indicate any grievousness in those four simple injuries also. Ex.A.3 charge-sheet indicates that the driver was prosecuted only for an offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code clearly indicating that it was only simple hurt that was caused to the inmates of the car resulting in the prosecution. Ex.A.4 are the bills said to be indicating the expenses incurred by the claimant for treatment. The Tribunal noted that Ex.A.4 bills indicated an expenditure of Rs.1,000/- towards transport and Rs.5,000/- towards room rent and treatment charges. In the absence of any contrary evidence for the respondents, the wound certificate Ex.A.2 or medical bills Ex.A.4 could not have been rejected merely on suspicion. When P.W.1 being injured in the accident was considered probablised by the Tribunal, the consequences of the accident as stated by Exs.A.2 and A.4 could not have been overlooked altogether in assessing the compensation payable at a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/-. The Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes grant of Rs.1,000/- towards pain and suffering for each simple injury and even if the same scale were to be adopted, the claimant would have been entitled to Rs.6,000/- for four sutured injuries and two simple injuries noted in Ex.A.2. While it should be noted that the alleged prolonged treatment for about six months disabling the claimant from pursuing his avocation appears to be an exercise in exaggeration, the claimant would have, undoubtedly, incurred minimum expenses towards his treatment, attendant charges, extra nourishment or any other incidental and inevitable expenses before the injuries were totally healed and taking Ex.A.4 as the basis for assessing such expenses and damages, grant of Rs.6,000/- towards the same would have been in the interests of justice. Thus, grant of a total compensation of Rs.12,000/- under all heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to be awarding a just and adequate compensation and the compensation has to be enhanced accordingly. However, in the light of the distance of time for which interest has to be paid on the enhanced compensation, the same can be confined to 6 per cent per annum while proportionate costs shall follow suit. In the result, the award, dated 01-10-2002 in O.P. No.144 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nellore is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven 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 Tribunal and the appeal is allowed in part accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 01-03-2011 Svv