IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3055 of 2000 Between: Shiva Shankar Kumar Rai ..Appellant AND Sri Pasam Venkateswara Rao and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in M.O.P.No.85 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Court, Vizianagaram, dated 20-07-2000. The factual background for the appeal is that the appellant was travelling in auto No.AP 35-T-2407 on 5-10-1997 at about 2.30P.M. when the lorry No.AP 16 T 4928 came from opposite side at Savaravilli junction and dashed against the auto in high speed rashly and negligently. The petitioner sustained grievous and simple injuries and hence, sought for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry. The driver and owner of the lorry were ex parte before the Tribunal, while the insurer contested the claim contending that the vehicle was not insured with it at the time of accident and the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of both the vehicles, due to which the owner and insurer of the auto are also necessary parties. The claim was in any view excessive and hence, the 3rd respondent desired the claim to be negatived. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues on the manner of accident and the quantum of compensation and the liability of the respondents and tried the claim petition along with three other claim petitions arising out of the same accident. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 was recorded and Exs.A.1 to A.26 and B.1 were marked during the common enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award in this case, firstly concluding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 1st respondent, for which purpose it relied on the evidence of the injured PWs.1 to 4 and also the First Information Report-Ex.A.1, the Charge Sheet-Ex.A.2 and the Calendar and Judgment in the criminal case-Ex.A.24. The conviction of the 1st respondent on admission was accepted as proving the responsibility for the accident. The Tribunal also noted that Ex.B.1-insurance policy was in force for the lorry making all the three respondents liable to compensate the injured petitioner justly and adequately jointly and severally. The Tribunal then proceeded to assess the quantum of compensation and firstly noted that the medical expenses were completely reimbursed by the company with which PW.3 was employed and therefore, considered that any further reimbursement of such medical expenses from the respondents would be making double payment to the injured. The Tribunal then went on to note the two grievous injuries and one simple injury sustained by the petitioner in the accident and also considered Ex.A.26-Disability certificate about 10% disability of the petitioner and awarded Rs.2,000/- towards simple injury, Rs.25,000/- for two grievous injuries and Rs.5,000/- for the minor partial permanent disability, making a total of Rs.32,000/-. On such sum of Rs.32,000/-, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to award interest at 12% p.a. and proportionate costs. This appeal is against the said award with the appellant claiming that the loss of earnings of the petitioner due to the accident was permanent and earlier he was being paid Rs.2,000/- per month, but he is now earning only Rs.40/- per day. The appellant also contended that the pain and suffering should have been awarded higher compensation and the disability of 10% certified by Medical Board also should have been compensated with a further sum. The arguments of Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri M. Jeevan Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent, are heard. The point for consideration is whether there is any justification for interfering with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal? The claim that the petitioner was being paid Rs.2,000/- per month earlier prior to the accident and that his earnings were reduced to Rs.40/- per day after the accident was not corroborated by any independent evidence and the interested and self-serving claims of PW.3 in this regard may not be open to acceptance at face value. PW.3 himself admitted that he is still working in the same office though he is doing different work and the employment being converted from regular employment into one on daily wages is not corroborated by any document issued by the said employer or office. If the company had reimbursed him of his medical expenses in full as admitted by PW.3, the claims of PW.3 do not inspire confidence that the nature of his job underwent a substantial change resulting in reduction of emoluments after the accident and it could have been a matter of record, if it were true and in the absence of such proof, the Tribunal could not have granted any compensation towards loss of earnings in future. Similarly, the 10% disability said to have been suffered by the petitioner is due to fracture of the right wrist and not due to the other fracture of pelvis. The fracture of right wrist resulting in 10% disability and the employment of PW.3 being interdependent in any manner is not proved from the evidence on record, and therefore, it cannot be said that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads, while arriving at a total compensation of Rs.32,000/-, are in any way unreasonable or unreal. The compensation could have been only just and adequate and it could not have been made a source of unjust enrichment and there are no strong grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal on merits with regard to the quantum of compensation. In the result, the appeal has to fail and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 02-08-2010 Ksn