IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.2403 of 2007 Between: P. Balaram .. Appellant AND E. Sreelakshmi & 2 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.2403 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.285 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, dated 11.04.2007. 2. The appellant, a practising Advocate, aged about 30 years was going as a pillion rider on a two wheeler on 16.02.2003 at 10.45 a.m. when near Thatithopu on Chandragiri–Tirupati road, APSRTC bus No.AP 03V 4245, driven rashly and negligently, hit the two wheeler. The appellant, who suffered injuries, sought for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the owner, insurer and hirer of the bus. 3. The insurer denied the allegations of the appellant and alleged contributory negligence of the appellant to be the cause for the accident. The owner and insurer of the scooter are, hence, claimed to be necessary parties. The APSRTC stated that the driver is not their employee and, hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation, more so, as the hire agreement makes the owner of the bus responsible for all such claims. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident, the ownership, insurance and hire of the bus and the entitlement of the appellant to compensation and from whom. 5. During the enquiry, the Tribunal examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5, B-1 and B-2. 6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting the evidence of P.W.1 corroborated by Ex.A-1-First Information Report and Ex.A-2-Charge Sheet to conclude that the rash and negligent driving of the bus resulted in the accident and injuries to the appellant. The Tribunal also noted that from Ex.B-1-Insurance Policy and Ex.B-2-Hire Agreement, it is evident that the first respondent is not liable to pay any compensation, while respondents 2 and 3 are liable to pay the same. The Tribunal also concluded from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that there was no permanent disability left for the appellant and for the head injury and fracture of the right parietal bone for which he was treated for a day in the hospital, the appellant is entitled to Rs.7,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment and bed rest, Rs.5,000/- for the grievous injury and Rs.1,000/- each for the two simple injuries towards pain and suffering, Rs.9,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nutrition, Rs.1,000/- towards transport expenses and Rs.6,000/- towards loss of amenities. The total compensation of Rs.30,000/- was directed to carry interest at 7.5% per annum. 7. The appellant contends herein that in the absence of any evidence for the respondents and in view of the evidence of the medical expert about the disability, reasonable amounts ought to have been awarded towards attendant charges, transport, nutrition, adverse impact on practice as an Advocate and future medical expenses. The appellant, therefore, desired the balance compensation claimed by him to be awarded. 8. Sri K. Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Nisaruddin Ahmed Jeddy, learned standing counsel for the second respondent/insurer are heard and none appeared for respondents 1 and 3 before this Court. 9. The point for consideration herein is only the quantum of just and adequate compensation to which the appellant is entitled, as the conclusions of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident and the liability of respondents 2 and 3 to pay the compensation were not challenged by any of the respondents. The respondents also did not question the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and so far as the loss of income granted at Rs.7,000/- for one month is concerned, the appellant was in hospital as inpatient only for one day and straight away believing his taking a bed rest for one month, the loss of income was granted at the rate at which the appellant claimed to be earning from his profession. Similarly, medical expenses and nutrition were granted at Rs.9,000/- as claimed, while for awarding any amount more than Rs.1,000/- granted towards transport expenses, there are no documents to prove such expenditure. The loss of amenities granted at Rs.6,000/- also cannot be considered to be underestimated. What all can be complained against is the amount awarded towards pain and suffering with reference to the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’), while in petitions under Section 166 of the Act, conventionally much higher sums are awarded under that head. If the compensation is enhanced by a further sum of Rs.5,000/-, the same will satisfy the need for grant of just and adequate compensation and the enhanced compensation can also carry the same rate of interest at 7.5% per annum. 10. Therefore, the award, dated 11.04.2007, in M.V.O.P.No.285 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.5,000/- payable with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, accordingly, in part without costs. ______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10th October, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.2403 of 2007 Date: 10th October, 2011 KL