IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTYFOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3325 of 2002 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Senior Divisional Manager, Hyderabad .. Petitioner AND K. Ramulu and another .. Respondents ORDER: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.178 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 8-2-2002. The factual background for the appeal is that on 5-9-2000 at about 10.30 P.M., the 1st respondent herein was taking passengers in his auto and near the Electric Sub-station near Nagamaiah Kunta, Ambassador Car No.APY-6520, owned by the 2nd respondent herein and insured with the appellant, came in opposite direction in high speed, driven rashly and negligently and dashed the auto. The 1st respondent claimed to have suffered grievous injuries including head injury and the 1st respondent and passengers were also shifted in the auto to Gandhi Hospital. Chikkadapally Police registered Crime No.535 of 2000 and the 1st respondent herein claimed a compensation of Rs.70,000/- against the owner and insurer of the Ambassador car. While the owner of the car remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer put the claimant to strict proof of all the allegations contending that the compensation claimed was excessive. The Tribunal framed issues about the entitlement of the claimant for compensation and examined PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 and B.1 and B.2 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting the evidence of the injured-PW.1, corroborated by Ex.A.1-FIR and Ex.B.1-Charge Sheet as showing the accident to have occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Ambassador car. The Tribunal considered the non-examination of any doctor, who treated the claimant, to be leading to the conclusion that the grievousness of the injuries was not proved and the injuries must be held to be simple. The medical bills to a tune of Rs.12,206/- were taken into account, while awarding a lump sum compensation of Rs.35,000/- payable with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs. The respondents were made jointly and severally liable to pay the same. The insurer challenged the award questioning the grant of consolidated compensation against the statute and precedents. Smt. P.S. Manjula Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V. Achuta Ram, learned counsel for the 1st respondent are heard and the appeal was already dismissed for default against the 2nd respondent-owner of the vehicle on 26-09-2008. The findings of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the Ambassador car driver for the accident, the ownership of the Ambassador car with the 2nd respondent herein, the subsistence of a valid insurance policy for the car with the appellant herein and the consequential joint and several liability of the owner and insurer to justly and adequately compensate the injured are not the subject matter of the grounds of appeal and the findings of the Tribunal in this regard can be considered to have become final. The grievance of the appellant is only against the quantum of compensation awarded, which alone is the point to be considered herein. An expenditure of Rs.12,206/- was noted by the Tribunal to have been proved through Ex.A.5-bunch of 8 prescriptions and Ex.A.6-bunch of 17 medical bills spoken to by the injured-PW.1. The connection between the accident and the bills not having been disputed during the cross-examination of PW.1, the claimant is entitled to reimbursement of such expenses. It is true that the FIR given by the claimant about an injury to the head and injuries to the face, hands and other parts of the body did not elaborate further the nature of the injuries and it is also true that the Panchanama of the scene of offence throws no further light on the nature of injuries suffered by PW.1. Ex.A.3-Discharge Certificate, while specifically noting that PW.1 was injured in a road traffic accident on 5-9-2000 at Nagamaiah Kunta, referred to the application of a slab for the right wrist obviously for an alleged fracture and Ex.A.4-Discharge Certificate from Navodaya Nursing Home also referred to such a fracture of right wrist. However, the claimant did not examine any person connected with the treatment and Ex.B.1-Charge Sheet specified the offence committed by the driver to be only one under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the injured-claimant, who was stated to have received only simple injuries. As the insurer itself produced Ex.B.1-Charge Sheet under which the statutory investigating agency found the accident to have happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car resulting in simple injuries to the injured- claimant, the happening of the accident and PW.1 suffering injuries therein cannot be in dispute. Grant of Rs.35,000/- in lump sum obviously covering pain and suffering, attendant charges, transport charges, extra nourishment, loss of income during the period of hospitalization, other inevitable expenses and all other heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages cannot be considered excessive. Even if the injuries suffered by PW.1 were not shown to be grievous and even if the fracture of right wrist was not proved through any medical evidence, the cross-examination of PW.1 itself contained a suggestion on behalf of the insurer that he sustained simple injuries in the accident. Even if there could have been some marginal increase or decrease in the assessment of compensation, the same is inevitable as an element of guess and estimate becomes unavoidable in such cases. In the absence of any strong and convincing reasons to interfere with the quantum of compensation at this distance of time, the appellant has to fail. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-01-2011 Ksn