THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A.No.2603 of 2007 & Cross-Objections 4th June, 2010 Between :- New India Assurance Co.Ltd., D.O., IV Floor, Article-Kasim Trade Centre, Ranigunj, Secunderabad .. Appellant And B.Bharathamma and others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A.No.2603 of 2007 & Cross-Objections JUDGMENT:- Heard Sri T.Ramulu, the learned Counsel representing the appellant and Sri C.M.Prakash, the learned Counsel representing the respondents – Cross-objectors. 2. The New India Assurance Company Limited – respondent No.2 preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.2603/2007 being aggrieved of the order made in O.P.No.2306/2001 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad. Being aggrieved of the order on the ground that lesser compensation had been awarded, cross-objections also had been preferred by the claimants. 3. Sri Ramulu, the learned Counsel representing the appellant had taken this Court through the Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 and also had pointed out to the specific grounds raised and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case the compensation awarded being on the higher side, the same to be reduce and accordingly to be modified. 4. Per contra, Sri Prakash, the learned Counsel representing the respondents – claimants would maintain that the Tribunal ought to have awarded total compensation as prayed for i.e., Rs.3,00,000/- but awarded lesser compensation i.e., Rs.1,45,000/- The learned Counsel also specifically pointed out that even if the age to be taken into consideration, the multiplier to be applied being ‘8’, the compensation which had been calculated is on the lesser side and hence the same to be modified. While further elaborating his submissions, the learned Counsel would maintain that the awarding of only Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses also cannot be sustained in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Heard the Counsel. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the Counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this M.A.C.M.A. and the Cross-Objections:- 1) Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal to be confirmed or to be disturbed or to be modified in the facts and circumstances of the case? 2) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to be enhanced in the light of the specific grounds raised in the Cross-Objections by the Cross-objectors – claimants? 3) If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to? 7. Points No.1 and 2:- For the purpose of convenience these points are being discussed together. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as shown in O.P.No.2306/2001 aforesaid. 8. The case of the petitioners is that the deceased Buchaiah was the husband of the 1st petitioner and the father of petitioners 2 to 4 and that he was aged 56 years and was working as a Supervisor in M/s.Srinidhi Homes, Habsiguda, Hyderabad and drawing an income of Rs.3,000/- per month. They contended that on 9-2-2001 at about 12.45 p.m., when the said Buchaiah was proceeding to Habsiguda from Nacharam and when he reached NTR Studio, one lorry bearing No.AP-28-U-723 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cyclist, who fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Hence, he was shifted to NIMS Hospital, where he was treated from the date of accident i.e., 9-2-2001 till 25-2-2001 and on 26-2-2001 he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital. On the way, he succumbed to the injuries sustained. The petitioners contended that as a result of the accident, the police registered a crime vide Crime No.21/2001. They also stated that as a result of death of Buchaiah, the petitioners lost their very support apart from losing the financial and emotional support. They claimed that as a result of the death of Buchaiah, they suffered mental agony and shock. They also claimed that as a result of the injuries sustained by Buchaiah, they had to incur huge expenses towards his treatment and inspite of the same, he succumbed to the injuries. As such, contended that in view of the sufferings undergone by him and loss suffered by them apart from expenses incurred, they are entitled for compensation of Rs.3 lakhs and that the 1st respondent who was the owner of the lorry that caused the accident and the 2nd respondent with whom, the same is insured are liable to pay them the compensation. 9. 1st respondent filed counter affidavit resisting the same denying several of the allegations made. Respondents 2 and 3 admitted the accident vehicle but no doubt averred several other further facts. 10. On the strength of the averments made before the Tribunal, the Tribunal formulated the following issues:- 1) Whether the accident in question took placed on 9-2-2001 at 12.45 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP-28-U-723 by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? if so to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 11. On behalf of the claimants P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10 were marked. On behalf of respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.3 were marked. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence available on record, i.e., the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, R.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10 and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.3, ultimately came to the conclusion that the claim to be allowed awarding a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- in addition to Rs.5,000/- as loss of consortium to the 1st petitioner as compensation along with costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation of the same and no doubt certain further clarificatory directions also had been given. The main ground urged is that the correct multiplier had not been applied. No doubt, certain submissions were made relating to the discrepancy of age in the F.I.R. and the other documentary evidence as well. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion to the said details but however this Court is satisfied that in the light of the elaborate reasons which had been recorded by the Tribunal it cannot be said that a wrong multiplier had been applied. May be two views are possible but however the approach adopted by the Tribunal totally cannot be said to be unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the Hospital Bill and Medical Bills – Ex.A.7 and Ex.A.8 had been marked. Ex.A.9 is the Discharge Card and Ex.A.10 is the Admit and Discharge card of Gandhi Hospital. Under the caption of medical expenditure only Rs.15,000/- had been granted. It may be that no clear acceptable evidence had been placed in this regard but however in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court is satisfied that granting of medical expenses at Rs.15,000/- being on lower side the same is being enhanced to Rs.30,000/- (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/-). Except this modification, this Court is not inclined to disturb any other findings whatsoever especially in the light of the elaborate reasons which had been recorded by the Tribunal while answering issues No.1 and 2 in elaboration. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is hereby dismissed and the Cross-Objections are hereby partly allowed to the extent indicated above. 12. Point No.3:- In the light of the findings recorded above, M.A.C.M.A. is hereby dismissed and the cross-objections is hereby partly allowed granting additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses. It is needless to say that the interest at 7.5% per annum on this enhanced amount also hereby granted. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 4th June, 2010 smr