IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4048 of 2003 Between: S. Somaiah .. Appellant AND 1. M/s. Lalaiah & Co. 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4048 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award, dated 25.03.2003, in O.P.No.971 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The appellant claimed to be aged 40 years then and earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a labourer was involved in a motor accident on 13.04.1998 at about 6.30 p.m. when the auto trolly No.AP 9T 9637 in which he and others were travelling was dashed against by the tipper No.AP 24T 576, owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, near the bridge near Amberpet. The tipper was driven rashly and negligently in high speed and the appellant claimed to have sustained fractures and to have been treated at the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. He claimed a compensation of Rs.80,000/- from the owner and insurer of the tipper. 3. The owner of the tipper remained ex parte, while the insurer denied all the allegations of the claimant and put him to strict proof. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-7 and B-1 during the course of enquiry. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting the evidence of the injured P.W.1 corroborated by Ex.A-1-First Information Report and Ex.A-2-Charge Sheet to conclude that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tipper by its driver. The Tribunal, in assessing the quantum of compensation, noted that P.W.1, the injured, did not examine any doctor who treated him and referring to Exs.A-3 to A-7, the Tribunal noted that the appellant received only simple injuries and was treated in the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad from 13.04.1998 to 24.04.1998. The further treatment claimed by P.W.1 to have been obtained from Saroja Hospital, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District was not relied on by the Tribunal and the documents relating to the same were not acted upon. Similarly, the medical bills of the year 2002 were also not relied on and the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment and proportionate costs. The claimant was aggrieved by the meagre compensation awarded to him and filed the appeal claiming that he sustained fractures and grievous injuries and became permanently disabled and unfit to work as a labourer. He further claimed that interest ought to have been awarded on the compensation at 12% per annum and the documents Exs.A-4 to A- 7 could have been considered and the entire compensation could have been awarded. 6. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. 7. The finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the tipper driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving did not appear to have been challenged by either respondent and the ownership of the vehicle with the first respondent to the claim and its subsisting insurance with the second respondent to the claim also did not appear to have been seriously questioned. If so, the joint and several liability of both the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the appellant/claimant for the injuries suffered in the accident and their consequences cannot be in doubt. 8. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the appellant examined himself alone and produced no other oral evidence. P.W.1 has stated that he took treatment for 12 days for the injuries received by him on his legs, waist and left knee. P.W.1 did not elaborate the nature of the injuries suffered by him in those places and his claim of spending about Rs.40,000/- for treatment and his being unable to do any work was not corroborated by any other evidence including the documents produced by him. Ex.A-1-First Information Report only refers to the inmates of the auto suffering injuries and Ex.A-2-Charge Sheet shows that the driver of the tipper was prosecuted only for causing simple hurt to the claimant and another. The Medico Legal Record in Ex.A-3 only indicated that P.W.1 was unable to get up and was complaining of tenderness at the places claimed by him and Ex.A-4-Discharge Card indicated that he underwent treatment at the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for 11 days. That does not indicate the injuries being subsequently detected to be grievous or the injuries leaving any permanent or temporary consequences on the physical state of P.W.1. Ex.A-5-Receipt from Saroja Hospital, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District was on 20.06.2000, while the accident was on 13.04.1998. What were the hospital charges towards which the receipt was issued was not evident from Ex.A-5-Receipt. Similarly, Ex.A-6-Medical Bills were of the year 2002 and Ex.A-7-Prescription was of the year 2001. How they are connected with any injuries suffered in the accident in question is not evident and all the medical prescriptions only show some medicines having been prescribed, but any connection between the accident in question and the prescriptions is not intelligible. The claimant tried to claim that he was having pain even at the time of his examination as a witness, but in the absence of any corroboration for his claims from the documents on record, his contentions cannot be accepted. For the two simple injuries and 12 days of hospitalization, the grant of Rs.10,000/- by the Tribunal cannot be considered to be low or meagre, more so, when the treatment at the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad would have been free and not on payment of any charges. Under the circumstances, the compensation awarded cannot be considered to be not just and adequate and the appeal has to fail. 9. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 17th March, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4048 of 2003 Date: 17th March, 2011 KL