IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH (7TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.1029 of 2009 & Cross Objections (SR) No.19104 of 2009 Between: APSRTC, Hyderabad … Appellant And: Boya Galaiah … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.1029 of 2009 & Cross Objections (SR) No.19104 of 2009 ORDER: This appeal and cross-objections are directed against the order dated 11.11.2008 in OP No.922 of 2006 on the file of the MACT cum I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, wherein the said claim application filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the respondent herein, was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,400/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.6 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05.10.2006. According to the claimant, on that day, himself and one Lingaswamy, were going on Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No.AP 24 M 3076 from Choutuppal towards Kistapuram, that the claimant was a pillion rider and an RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 2038 coming in the opposite direction dashed against the motor cycle due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver, resulting in multiple grievous injuries to the claimant. 4. The appellant-APSRTC filed counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. During the enquiry, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.15 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the RTC. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The said finding is not seriously challenged in the present appeal. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.4,00,400/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, APSRTC filed the present appeal. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount awarded is highly disproportionate to the injuries sustained by the claimant, who suffered only two fracture injuries and the problem of gangrene, which arose in the year 2008 long after the accident, which took place in 2006 does not have any nexus with the accident or injuries suffered in the accident. 7. The medical evidence on record, particularly, Ex.A.2 certified copy of the medical certificate issued by Kamineni Hospital, Narketpalle, shows that the claimant sustained four lacerations, which are simple in nature and two fractures i.e., compound fracture on the right femur and compound fracture of right patella, which are grievous. Ex.A.3 medical certificate issued by the Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad, shows that the claimant suffered crush injury on the lower 1/3rd of the right thigh. Exs.A.6 to A.9 are discharge summaries issued by Kamineni Hospital, Hydeabad. PW.2-R.M.O., Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad testified that the claimant was admitted in the hospital on 06.10.2006 and was discharged on 19.10.2006 and he rejoined on 21.12.2006 and discharged on 03.01.2007 for the same problem and he was admitted for third time on 18.06.2007 for hinged total knee replacement and was discharged on 17.07.2007 and that he was again admitted on 01.09.2007 due to infection in the right thigh and was discharged on the same day. 8. Thus as per the evidence of PW.2 coupled with discharge summaries Exs.A.6 to A.9 issued by Kamineni Hospital, the claimant was admitted in the hospital on four occasions in connection with the treatment for the same injuries sustained in the accident over a period of about one year and he was inpatient for a total period of about 2 months. PW.4 Dr. JVS Vidyasagar, Head of the Department of Orthopedics, Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad, testified that the claimant has undergone surgery under Anesthesia for crush injury and external fixture was put to stabilize the fracture and that subsequently on 21.12.2006 external fixture was removed and hinged knee replacement was done. He further testified that the claimant was again admitted on 18.06.2007 for treatment of the infection and removal of the sinus and external fixture was again applied. It is also in his evidence that the claimant was discharged with walker. It is also in his evidence that the claimant required further treatment in view of the severe infection and bone loss, which was due to compound injury and as a lost resort, amputation of the limb was also needed to avoid infections spreading to the rest of the body, which would result in permanent disability. He also testified that still there was infection in the wound on the thigh and the claimant cannot do any work, which involves long distance walking, climbing stairs or hard work and he needs artificial limb for daily activities. 9. PW.3 Dr. P. Shashikumar, Managing Director of Sai Nikith Hospital, testified that the claimant continued further treatment in their hospital and he was admitted on 09.02.2008 with gangrene of right leg and amputation was done on 13.02.2008. It is also in his evidence that it was due to the road accident that occurred on 05.10.2006, for which he suffered commuted fracture of right patella and that the claimant was discharged on 04.03.2008. Thus the claimant was inpatient in the said hospital for about one month. 10. PW.5 Dr. K. Harinath, Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda, testified that he was a member of the District Medical Board for examination and assessment of the physical disability and Ex.A.12 is the certificate of disability issued by the Medical Board, assessing the disability at 80% on account of amputation of right leg. It is also in his evidence that in view of the said disability, the claimant will be having difficulty in walking, climbing and other locomotive activities and he cannot attend to manual labour work involving both limbs. 11. Thus the medical evidence of PWs.2 to 5 and Exs.A.2, 3, 6 to 9, 11 and 15 X-rays films, have all established the plea of the claimant regarding the nature of the injuries sustained by him, the course of treatment under gone, including multiple surgeries and ultimately amputation of the right leg above the knee and also period of hospitalization for about three months in different hospitals. Ex.A.12 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, the contents of which are duly proved by PW.5 one of the members of the Medical Board would go to show that the claimant suffered permanent disability to an extent of 80%. 12. According to the claimant, he was earning Rs.5000/- per month by doing labour work considering the same to be on higher side, the Tribunal estimated the average income of the claimant at Rs.1500/- per month, which is quite reasonable. As the claimant was aged 35 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier ‘16’ and estimated the loss of earning capacity on account of 80% disability at Rs.2,30,400/-. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. Having regard to the number surgeries under gone and nature of the injuries sustained, the said amount is considered to be reasonable. As per medical bills Ex.A.13, a sum of Rs.2,12,897.94 were spent towards medicines. The Tribunal however awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards medicines, extra nourishment, hospital expenses and other incidental charges. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained and the length of the hospitalization and multiple surgeries including amputation undergone by the claimant, the said amount cannot be considered as unreasonable, which in fact, is much less than the amount covered by the bills. Thus the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,400/- towards total compensation. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that subsequent amputation of the right leg has nothing to do with the injuries if the accident is untenable, for the reason that the elaborate medical evidence, oral and documentary available on record would clearly establish that the commuted fractures sustained in the accident have not healed and in fact, developed infection, necessitated repeated hospitalization and in spite of treatment, the infection persisted and ultimately, amputation of the right leg up to the knee have to be done as a last resort. Under the above circumstances, having regard to the fact that the claimant had to undergo amputation of the right leg up to the knee, resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 80%, which is duly established by evidence, the amount of Rs.4,00,400/- granted on the whole, cannot be considered to be excessive or unreasonable. However, in view of the recent decision of the apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case [(2009)6 SCC 121], the claimant is held entitled for interest at 6% per annum on the above said amount from the date of the petition. In the circumstances, it is held that the amount awarded does not call for any interference, except to the extent that the interest is reduced at 6% per annum. 13. The claimant filed Cross-objections in (SR) No.19104 of 2009 for enhancement of the compensation by claiming the balance amount, which was disallowed by the Tribunal, mainly on the ground that the medical expenses ought to have been awarded in full as covered by the medical bills. However, in view of the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in ‘New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. V. Sujatharani[1]’, the cross-objections are not maintainable and hence, the cross-objections are dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed subject to the modification of the interest, which is now fixed at 6% per annum from the date of petition. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 07.12.2011 bss [1] 2011(5) ALD 156 (DB)