IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH (16TH) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.3650 OF 2009 Between: APSRTC, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam. … Appellant And: Nagumantri Devi Prasada Rao and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.3650 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 15.02.2006 in O.P.No.1260 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), (for short ‘the Tribunal’), Visakhapatnam, wherein the said claim application filed by the 1st respondent herein, was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimant. Perused the record. 3. The 1st respondent herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.7 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 04.12.2002. According to the claimant, on that day, he along with his family members was returning to Visakhapatnam in his Maruthi Car bearing No. AP 32 C 1807 from Naurangapur, Orissa and when he crossed Bondapalli village, an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 3352, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Maruthi car, as a result of which the claimant sustained multiple fractures to his left leg and left hand, besides injuries to other inmates of the car. A case in Cr.No.67 of 2002 was registered against the driver of the bus. 4. Respondents in the OP filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation and contending that the driver of the car was at fault. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-18 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant herein. 6. 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 APSRTC bus by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/ APSRTC preferred the present appeal. 7. Though the appellant would contend that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver and that the driver of the bus was not at fault, no effort was made to establish the said plea by adducing any evidence. The 2nd respondent herein, the driver of the bus, was not examined to show the circumstances under which the accident occurred and to prove that he was not at fault. The appellant/APSRTC also has not adduced any evidence to show that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. On the other hand, the criminal case record Ex.A-1-F.I.R and Ex.A-4-charge sheet would go to show that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and he was accordingly prosecuted. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver does not, therefore, call for any interference. 8. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards medical expenses, Rs. 1 lakh towards pain and suffering and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of past earnings for a period of three months. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the disability certiciate-Ex.A-9 was not issued by any competent medical board. In fact, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards physical disability and the claimant has also not questioned the same by way of any appeal. 9. The evidence on record shows that the claimant sustained multiple fracture injuries for which he was admitted in Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam as inpatient from 04.12.2002 to 17.12.2002 and during the said period, he underwent surgery twice on 04.12.2002 and 10.12.2002. The medical evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, the doctors attached to the hospital, coupled with Ex.A-5, the medical record maintained by the hospital, Ex.A-6, the inpatient report, and Ex.A-8, the discharge slip, would go to show the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant i.e., commuted fracture of left humerus and fracture of left femur extending to inter condylar region besides deep wound on the left side of neck and also the treatment undergone by him, including surgeries for reduction of fracture and fixation of plates and screws and skin grafting for the fracture of humerus and reduction of femoral fracture followed by interlock nailing of left femur. The evidence on record also shows that as the pain did not subside, on medical advise, the claimant underwent another operation on 06.02.2003 at R.K.Hospital, Gajuwaka where the implants already fixed to his left leg were removed and a different mode of implant for free mobility of his left knee was applied. Ex.A-18 is the certificate issued by the R.K. Hospital showing the same. The claimant filed bunch of medical bills Exs.A-7, A-11, A-13, A-14 and a receipt Ex.A-12 and claimed total expenditure of Rs.2,21,619.59 Ps. The Tribunal, however, awarded only a sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards medical expenditure. As the evidence on record shows that the claimant has incurred medical expenses to an extent of Rs.2,20,000/-, the said amount is considered to be just and reasonable and, therefore, does not call for any interference. The Tribunal, however, awarded Rs.1 lakh towards pain and suffering. No doubt, at the age of 75 years, the claimant would have undergone acute pain and intense suffering on account of injuries sustained by him which are multiple fractures, besides other injuries. However, it is considered that the sum of Rs.1 lakh awarded towards pain and suffering is on higher side. But it is to be noted that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under any other sub-head in connection with hospitalization and treatment of the claimant. 10. Having regard to the fact that the claimant was initially shifted to Gajapathinagaram PHC and from there he was shifted to Government Hospital, Vizianagaram and then transported to Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam, it is considered that the claimant can be awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the length of hospitalization, it is considered just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges, as the claimant must have engaged the services of an attendant in view of the nature of injuries sustained by him. The claimant is also held entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering on account of his advanced age and the nature of multiple injuries sustained by him. The claimant is stated to be a medical practitioner and the amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of past earnings for a period of three months at the rate of R.10,000/-per month is considered just and reasonable, having regard to the nature of profession the claimant was engaged in. 11. Though the claimant is not awarded any amount towards permanent disability, the multiple injuries sustained by him and the multiple surgeries undergone by him have certainly affected his physical capacity at the advanced age of 75 years. The claimant is, therefore, held entitled for Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities. The claimant is, therefore, held entitled for Rs.3 lakhs with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 16th September 2011 Lrkm