IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTYFIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1768 of 2004 & Cross Objections C.M.A.No.1768 of 2004 Between: APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad. .. Appellant AND Allam Sunil Reddy and another .. Respondents Cross Objections Between: Allam Sunil Reddy .. Cross Objector AND APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad and another .. Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT: This appeal and the Cross Objections are directed against the award in O.P.No.197 of 2001 dated 10-03-2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Karimnagar. The claimant was going on TVS Suzuki motorcycle No.AP- 15-H-2849 as a pillion rider on 30-09-2000 and at about 12.30P.M., APSRTC bus No.AP-10-Z-6694, driven rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle in the outskirts of Chinthakunta. The claimant received grievous injuries and Karimnagar police registered Cr.No.141 of 2000. In spite of treatment at District Headquarters Hospital, Karimnagar and private hospital of Dr. B. Laxman and Apollo Hospitals, Hyderabad for the fracture of both bones of the right leg and simple injuries all over the body and in spite of undergoing surgeries including nail fixation and skin grafting, the claimant was left with a permanent disability. The claimant spent Rs.2,00,000/- for his treatment and Rs.15,000/- for extra nourishment during the period of confining to bed for five months and he still has to undergo another surgery for removal of steel rods. He claimed to have lost one academic year and therefore, he sought for a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- from the driver of the bus and the Corporation, the owner of the bus. While the driver of the bus denied any rash and negligent driving, he contended that the motorcycle was driven rashly and negligently and suddenly it came in front of the bus having lost control. In spite of the efforts by the bus driver by taking the bus to the left side, the motorcyclist slipped and dashed against the rear portion of the bus due to which the driver and the pillion rider of the motorcycle sustained injuries. The other allegations were also denied by the driver. The Corporation also took an identical defence against the sustainability of the claim. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the claimant to compensation and during the course of enquiry, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly accepting the evidence of the injured-PW.1 corroborated by Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2-charge sheet to conclude that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus. In assessing the compensation, the Tribunal considered the evidence of not only the injured-PW.1 but also the doctors examined as PWs.2 and 3 and concluded that the fracture of the right femur and Grade-II compound comminuted fracture of both bones of lower 1/3rd of the right leg with Broncho pneumonia resulted in fixation of nail in the right femur and wound debridement and external fixation and skin grafting of right tibia. The painful fractures made the Tribunal grant a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards fee of the doctor PW.2 as stated by him. The identification of Exs.A.6, A.7 and A.10 by PW.3 i.e. the Discharge Summary, the Disability Certificate and the inpatient bills made the Tribunal award Rs.1,22,000/- as covered by bills relating to treatment at Apollo Hospitals, while avoiding duplication of the claims in the bills. The Tribunal refused to award any other sums towards payments alleged to have been made to the other doctors in the absence of any oral or documentary evidence in support of such claim and the Tribunal also refused to grant Rs.50,000/- claimed as possible expenses for removing inter locking nail as the doctor never stated that such a removal is necessary. The Tribunal, however, taking into account the permanent partial disability of 25% spoken to by PW.3, awarded the present value of the future loss at Rs.50,000/- and also awarded Rs.23,000/- towards medicines, extra nourishment and transport and other miscellaneous charges. On the total compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The Corporation challenged the said award contending that the driver of the motorcycle himself was rash and negligent in driving and the fractures could have been cured even in the hospital of PW.2 as stated by PW.2 and the award of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- towards future loss are also excessive and the award of Rs.23,000/- towards medicines, extra nourishment, transport and other miscellaneous is also without any basis. The Corporation, therefore, desired the award to be reversed. The claimant in the cross-objections was aggrieved with the Tribunal not awarding the entire sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as claimed by him and contended that medical expenses should have been reimbursed with Rs.2,00,000/- and future medical expenses should also have been granted along with interest at 12% p.a. and not at 9% p.a. The disfiguration of the right leg due to the fractures and skin grafting should also have been taken into account and the 18 year old claimant, who is permanently disabled, should have been adequately compensated. Smt. G. Nivedhitha, learned counsel representing Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant-Corporation and Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant-1st respondent, are heard and the driver of the bus did not enter appearance before this Court. Though a feeble attempt was made in the grounds of appeal to claim that the driver of the motorcycle himself was rash and negligent in driving leading to the accident, the respondents did not produce any evidence before the Tribunal to contradict either the oral evidence of the injured-PW.1 or the contents of earliest version in Ex.A.1-First Information Report or the result of the statutory investigation by the police in Ex.A.2-charge sheet. The blame for the accident was squarely laid at the door of the 1st respondent to the claim by the police after independent investigation and the same provides sufficient corroboration for the interested claims of PW.1 leaving no scope for deviating from the conclusions of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the driver of the Corporation for the accident with his rash and negligent driving. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal went into the oral and documentary evidence in detail and found that out of the expenses claimed to have been incurred towards doctors’ fees, it is only Rs.5,000/- paid to PW.2 that was spoken to by PW.2 himself and hence, granted reimbursement of the same. The other medical expenses were carefully analyzed as covered by the in patient bills-Ex.A.10 read with discharge summary-Ex.A.6 and the Disability Certificate-Ex.A.7. Duplication of the claims through various bills with reference to the consolidated final bill was also analyzed and avoided and the grant of Rs.1,22,000/- under that head also cannot be faulted. The rejection by the Tribunal of the other expenses said to have been incurred cannot be considered unreasonable. The Tribunal gave valid reasons for the same stating that though the claimant produced a receipt for Rs.43,000/- said to have been paid to three doctors, none of those doctors were examined and the consolidated bills cover the fees of the surgeons apart from hospital expenses. The Tribunal took into account the three fractures in awarding Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and even under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, each grievous injury would have entitled the injured to a compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, while it is conventionally compensated with higher sums in petitions under Section 166. Similarly, the Tribunal was rational in not permitting any claim for possible future expenses for removal of inter locking nail as the doctor concerned as PW.3 did not state about any such necessity and the grant of Rs.50,000/- towards present value of the future loss is not because PW.1, the injured, is an earning member, but because of the adverse impact the permanent partial disability of 25% spoken to by PW.3 will have on the future of PW.1 including may be his capacity to earn. Such permanent partial disability undoubtedly effects the amenities of life and physical capacity of PW.1 to pursue any avocation to the fullest capacity in the same manner in which he would have done but for the accident. Granting a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards such a permanent disadvantage left with PW.1 for the rest of his life at the age of 18 years cannot be considered unjust or excessive. However, when it came to the sum of Rs.23,000/- granted in lump sum towards medicines, extra nourishment, transport etc., it has to be noted that when medical expenses were already reimbursed under specific heads, there could have been no further reimbursement of any cost of any medicines. Insofar as the extra nourishment or transport expenses are concerned, there is no documentary evidence before the Court of such expenses and the petitioner as PW.1 did not elaborate as to how he spent Rs.20,000/- towards transport and Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment as claimed in the claim petition. While undoubtedly he would have incurred some expenses towards extra nourishment, transport, attendant charges and other inevitable expenses, the same might not have been to a tune of Rs.23,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal and reducing the compensation under these heads by about Rs.10,000/- may be restricting the compensation to just and adequate levels. While an element of guess and estimate is inevitable in assessing the compensation, the claim in the cross-objections that medical expenses should have been granted at Rs.2,00,000/- and interest should have been granted at 12% p.a. etc., is not substantiated to be based either on fact or on any principles laid down in any binding precedents. Though the interest was granted at 9% p.a., it is not shown by either side that it is deviant from the then prevailing rate of interest with reference to what is paid or charged by the Nationalized Banks at about relevant time and therefore, interference with the impugned award should be only to the extent of the compensation by Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, the award dated 10-03-2004 in O.P.No.197 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Karimnagar, is modified by reducing the compensation by a sum of Rs.10,000/- and otherwise confirming the same in all respects. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs and the Cross Objections are dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 25-08-2011 Ksn