IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1043 of 2003 Between: Pallati Krishna .. Appellant AND Sri Mohd. Burhan & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1043 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.1127 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 26.09.2002. 2. The appellant and Mallesham were standing in front of Pavitra Hotel at Sadasivapet town on 17.05.2000 at about 7.30 p.m. and lorry No. AHT 7291, owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, driven rashly and negligently in high speed dashed against him fracturing his right femur and causing other severe injuries on the body. The appellant was treated at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. The police registered Crime No.65 of 2000 against the lorry driver. The appellant was earning Rs.2,000/- per month as a daily labourer and he suffered a permanent disability even after prolonged treatment. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 3. While the owner of the lorry remained ex parte, the insurer put the claimant to strict proof of all the allegations and claimed the compensation to be excessive. 4. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues on the responsibility for the accident and the quantum of compensation and examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-7 during the enquiry. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of P.W.1 corroborated by Exs.A-1 and A-2, First Information Report and Charge Sheet, as proving the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the lorry driver leading to the accident. On the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal found from Exs.A-3 to A-5-Certificates that the appellant received a fracture to his right femur which was grievous and the grant of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering for the fracture to be reasonable. Ex.A-6-bunch of medical bills disclosed an expense of Rs.541/- and the Tribunal granted Rs.4,000/- towards treatment and extra nourishment. It also awarded Rs.500/- each towards transport and damage to clothing and on the total compensation of Rs.20,000/-, interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs were awarded. 6. The appellant claims in this appeal that the unrebutted evidence of the appellant should have led to grant of higher sums towards the fractures, treatment, disability and other heads of damages. Hence, he desired the impugned award to be reversed. 7. The appeal was dismissed for default against the owner of the lorry/the first respondent by the order of this Court, dated 28.01.2010. 8. Sri M. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Aruna Yalagiri, learned counsel for the second respondent are heard. 9. The conclusion of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the lorry leading to the accident is not disputed by either party and the ownership of the vehicle with the first respondent and its valid and subsisting insurance with the second respondent not being in dispute, they have to jointly and severally compensate the appellant justly and adequately for the consequences of the accident. 10. The earliest version in Ex.A-1-First Information Report itself mentions about the appellant receiving a severe injury to his left leg. Ex.A-2-Charge Sheet mentions the injuries suffered by the appellant to be grievous and Ex.A-3-copy of Medico Legal Certificate issued by Government Hospital, Sadasivapet also certified the fracture to the shaft of the right femur to be a grievous injury. Ex.A-4-‘Under Treatment’ Certificate and Ex.A-5-Discharge Card issued by Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, show that the appellant was treated from 18.05.2000 to 03.06.2000 as inpatient in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, being subject to a surgery in between and Ex.A-4 says that he was advised rest for a minimum period of six weeks. Ex.A-6 are the medical bills for a total of Rs.541/-. The claimant as P.W.1 stated that he was bed ridden for seven months during which period he lost his entire income, while he spent huge money for treatment and transport. He claimed during his cross-examination that he gets Rs.30/- per day by virtue of coolie work. His claims about suffering any permanent disability are uncorroborated by any medical evidence. 11. While there is no evidence for the respondents to contradict the claims of P.W.1, none of the documents filed by the claimant were contradicted during his cross-examination and can be straight away acted upon. The very nature of the fractures suffered by him confined him to bed between 18.05.2000 and 03.06.2000 and he was advised complete bed rest for six weeks. Even after the healing of the fracture, he would not have been able to attend to hard labour immediately and the period of disablement can be safely taken to be at least four or five months during which he would have been deprived of his earnings in total. While even the minimum wages payable to unskilled labourers during the relevant period would have been much more, even at the scale of Rs.30/- per day as claimed by P.W.1 and Rs.900/- per month, if there is availability of such work for him through out the month, the loss of earnings should have been compensated at least with Rs.4,500/-. The expenses of transport and damage to clothing were compensated at Rs.500/- each by the Tribunal while extra nourishment and treatment were assessed to cost only Rs.4,000/- by the Tribunal with the background of Ex.A-6-Medical Bills for Rs.541/- only. However, as the period of his disablement is considered to be about five months, the expenditure for treatment and nourishment put together can be marginally enhanced keeping in view that he also underwent a surgery during the period of hospitalization. It can be rounded off to Rs.6,000/- in total as the treatment at Gandhi Hospital is free. Nothing was awarded towards attendant’s charges by the Tribunal and with the fracture of the leg and confinement to bed, he would have undoubtedly required an attendant during that period towards which a sum of Rs.3,000/- can be reasonably granted. While Rs.15,000/- was granted towards pain and suffering for the fracture, there was no permanently disabling consequence for the crush injury of left foot and, therefore, for the temporary disability till union of the fracture, loss of amenities of life in between and the grievous injury, another Rs.5,000/- can be considered to be granted as damages. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.34,500/- would have been reasonable and just and compensation awarded can be enhanced by Rs.14,500/- under the circumstances. 12. In view of the length of time for which interest has to be paid on the enhanced portion of the compensation, it can be limited to 6% per annum and proportionate costs, of course, shall have to be granted. 13. In the result, the award in O.P.No.1127 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 26.09.2002, is modified by enhancing the compensation by Rs.14,500/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award. 14. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, accordingly, in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 27th January, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1043 of 2003 Date: 27th January, 2011 KL