HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 514 of 2008 Date:14-07-2011 Between: New India Assurance Company Ltd. ……….. Appellant And N. Ramachandra Reddy and others …….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 514 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the order, dated 18-06-2007 passed in O.P.No.441 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Karimnagar, the present appeal is filed by the third respondent-Insurance Company. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14-12-2004 at about 4-00 PM, while the petitioner was returning from Narsampet village and when he reached Hunter road bridge, Hanmakonda, he stopped his motorcycle for urination and while he was getting down from the motorcycle, his right leg was hit by the auto trolley bearing No.AP 36V 8115, which is coming from his opposite side driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed. The petitioner sustained severe multiple injuries. Immediately he was admitted in MGM Hospital, Warangal and treated was given as inpatient. Therefore, the petitioner filed the O.P. claiming the compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- under all the heads. 3. In order to prove his claim, the petitioner himself was examined as PW-1 and got examined PWs.2 to 5 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-18, X-1, X-2 and C-1. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined, however, Ex.B-1, copy of the insurance policy, was got marked. 4. The Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence on record, partly allowed the O.P. through the order, dated 18-06-2007 awarding compensation of Rs.4,22,000/- under all the heads with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved thereby, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal. 5. It is the contention of the appellant-insurance company that the Tribunal erred in assessing the compensation, while taking into consideration the salary of the petitioner at Rs.5,000/- per month instead of Rs.2,450/- per month, and also erred in awarding Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.50,000/- towards simple injuries and Rs.1,48,000/- towards medical expenses and in any view of the matter, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is exorbitant and without any basis. 6. The learned counsel for the first respondent-petitioner, while supporting the order of the Tribunal, urged that the petitioner made the claim for Rs.12,00,000/-, but the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,22,000/- only basing on the evidence on record and there are no grounds to reduce the same. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 18-06-2007 is sustainable? 8. As seen from the impugned order, the factum of the accident is not disputed. The petitioner is aged about 47 years by the date of accident and he is an Advocate and Correspondent of Lotus Academy and a resident of Hanmakonda. He made the claim of Rs.12,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident on 14-02-2004. Admittedly the offending vehicle had valid insurance coverage as on the date of accident. In proof of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner, he himself was examined as PW-1 besides examining PWs.2 to 5 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A- 18, X-1, X-2 and C-1. Ex.B-1 is the copy of the insurance policy which reiterates that the offending vehicle is having valid insurance coverage as on the date of accident. 9. The petitioner as PW-1 deposed that he received 1) Multiple fracture of right leg with an opening lead to severe bleeding; 2) Head injury above right eyebrow with severe bleeding; 3) A cut on right shoulder; and 4) Simple injuries all over his body and operation was performed and steel rods are inserted. He spent nearly Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical expenses. It is also his evidence that as per the Orthopaedic Surgeon, he sustained 50% disability, and it cannot be compensated in terms of money. 10. In proof of injuries, the petitioner got examined PW-2, Dr. N. Srinivasa Reddy and PW-5, Dr.K. Ramkumar Reddy, and in proof of earnings, he got examined PW-3, Koyyeda Ramakrishnaiah, Head Master of Sri Vivekavardhini School, and PW- 4, Madoori Srinivas, Grade-I Assistant in Central Warehousing Corporation, Warangal. PWs.3 and 4 deposed in one voice that the petitioner was having earning capacity with an academic background and due to the injuries, he is deprived of his income. No rebuttal evidence was adduced against the evidence of PWs.3 and 4. In the absence of any such rebuttal evidence, the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 remained unrebutted. 11. According to PW-2, he examined the petitioner on 25-03-2005 and performed the operation on 26-03-2005 and discharged him on 30-03-2005. The petitioner was again admitted for bone grafting and operation was performed on 21-05-2005 and externation fixtor was removed on 17-11-2006 and advised the petitioner to undergo physiotherapy. He asserted that the petitioner has 50% disability. Though PW-2 was put to thorough cross-examination, nothing was elicited to discredit his testimony. PW-5, another doctor who was working as Assistant Professor in M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, also certified the injuries sustained by the petitioner as spoken by PW-2. 12. On a combined reading of the evidence of PWs.2 and 5, it amply proved that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries resulting deprival of his income and unable to lead his normal life. The evidence of PW-5 clinchingly proves that due to the injuries i.e., 1) Compound grade-3 fracture both bones of right leg; 2) Compound fracture patella right side; and 3) crush injury involving leg and ankle region, the limb condition was serious and the survival of the limb was doubtful. 13. Taking into consideration the evidence of PWs.2 and 5, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. In a case of this nature, the suffering and the disability cannot be equated in terms of money. With the said injuries, it is very difficult for the petitioner to lead normal life and the said injuries will cause hindrance in his day-to-day life which cannot be compensated. Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances, in particular taking into consideration the evidence of PWs.2 and 5, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and thereby, the order of the Tribunal is sustainable and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, there are no merits in this appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 01-07-2011 YCR