IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD. Date: 14-03-2011 PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY M.A.C.M.A. No.481 of 2011 B e t w e e n: The National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, D.O.2, IV Floor, Swapnalok complex, S.D. Road, Secunderabad. - - - Appellant/ Respondent No.2. A n d Mohd. Aslam Quraishi and another. - - - Respondents. The court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHANREDDY M.A.C.M.A. No.481 OF 2011 JUDGEMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice. G. Krishna Mohan Reddy) 1. This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the M.V. Act’) seeking to set aside order dated 06-09-2010 passed in M.V.O.P. No.869 of 2007 filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short’ ‘the learned Chief Judge’), seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- on account of injuries said to be received by the petitioner, partly allowing it. 2. The appellant is the second respondent and the first respondent is the petitioner and the second respondent is the respondent No.1 in M.V.O.P. No.869 of 2007 before the lower Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed before the lower Court. 3. M.V.O.P. No.869 of 2007 was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- on the ground that the petitioner involved in a accident within the limits of Lakkaram village near Kottulamarri, Kurnool District, while he was travelling along with others by DCM Van bearing registration No.AP13W-7296 from Hyderabad for the purpose of going to Arvapally Cattle Shandi as one lorry bearing registration No. WB-23-9501 came and hit the DCM Van because of rash and negligence of the lorry as a result of which he sustained multiple grievous injuries and in spite of taking necessary treatment, be become permanently disabled person and he requires further treatment. 4. Whereas, the first respondent remained ex parte, the second respondent filed counter denying the claims made by the petitioner totally and further claiming that in any case, the compensation sought for would be highly exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. The lower Court framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1) Whether the accident resulting in injuries to the petitioner occurred owning to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No.WB-23-9501? 2) Whether the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the second respondent or not? 3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and, if so, to what amount and from whom? And 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the petitioner, he got himself examined as PW.1 and got examined concerned doctors as PWs. 2 to 5 and Physiotherapist, Ward-boy and Nurse as PWs.6 to 8 and examined his wife as PW.9 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-22. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the second respondent and Ex.B-1 copy of police was marked by consent. 7. Examining the material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner sustained fracture of C6 spine with subluxation of C6 and C7 along with cord injury and there is evidence of posterior subluxation of the humeral head from the glenoid fossa and in addition to that, there is evidence of comminuted fracture of the antero-inferior aspect of humeral head and neck with inferior displacement of one of the fractured fragments and he was unable to move all his four limbs and he got loss of sensation below the chest and in spite of taking necessary treatment, he became disabled person and further the Tribunal accepted Ex.A-1 medical bills numbering 115 for Rs.3,97,592/- Accordingly, total loss of earning capacity comes to (Rs.3,000 x 12) Rs.36,000/- x 18 = Rs.6,48,000/- and Rs.1,11,000/- towards physiotherapy charges and Rs.78,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,00,000/- towards nutritious food and Rs.3,00,000/- towards future treatment on the ground that he has to undergo future treatment with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 26-02-2007 till the date of deposit of the amount by the Respondents 1 and 2, permitting the petitioner to withdraw Rs.9,00,000/- and so on. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the second respondent that the Tribunal erroneously granted Rs.1,11,000/- and Rs.78,000/- towards service charges said to be rendered by PWs. 7 and 8 on the ground that they were not cross-examined and further in spite of awarding compensation towards disability taken at 100% accordingly, Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering extra nourishment would be bogus and accordingly Rs.3,00,000/- towards future treatment without any evidence also would be erroneous and further granted interest at 9% p.a. in stead of 6% p.a. on the total compensation amount awarded would be excessive and contrary to law as laid down by the Apex Court. 9. Therefore, it is to be determined as to, whether awarding of the said amount by the Tribunal is proper and sustainable? 10. So far as the awarding of amount of Rs.1,11,000/- and Rs.78,000/- towards services said to be rendered by PWs. 7 and 8, it is pertinent to note here that they were not cross-examined and therefore their evidence was unchallenged and hence allowing those amounts is quite proper. The authorities of the second respondent should have taken necessary measures to discredit their evidence in that context. Further, significantly the petitioner received multiple grievous injuries and underwent treatment for long time spending huge amounts, but in spite of that he became a disabled person by reason of which it is quite justifiable to award those amounts towards their services. Further, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,00,000/- towards nutritious food and Rs.3,00,000/- towards future treatment are quite distinct from each other and there was no overlapping of one head into another head and taking into consideration the impact of the accident and the consequential treatment taken by him those amounts are quite reasonable. Further, there can not be any evidence with regards to the future treatment of the petitioner and it is purely a guess work to ascertain what amount is to be paid in that connection examining the gravity involved in the case. In that view of the matter, we do not find anything abnormal in awarding those amounts. Further, with regards to payment or awarding interest, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, it is to be seen that the litigation would come to an end finally and if the litigation is continued the petitioner being in such a precarious condition has to suffer further and further through out the remaining part of his life and therefore unless the fruits of the decree are enjoyed by the petitioner there is no meaning in granting the decree. 11. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the question of awarding interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total amount from the date of petition till the date of realisation need not be looked into. We find no merits in the Appeal and therefore it is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ G. RAGHURAM, J. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. DATE: 14-03-2011. Dsh.