IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTYFIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2370 of 2003 Between: Arajula Raju ..... Appellant And M. Mohan Reddy and another …Respondents The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.885 of 1997, dated 29-7-2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. The appellant was working as driver of lorry No.AP-16-T- 7559 for a monthly salary of Rs.2,000/- and a daily batta of Rs.20/- at the time of the accident on 1-6-1997. When he was within the limits of Kattangur village at about 2.00 A.M., the opposite coming lorry ATG-4689, driven rashly and negligently, dashed his lorry resulting in fractures to the appellant on the right leg, head and left thumb and grievous injuries on the hands and legs, while the lorry was also damaged. The appellant was treated at Government Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda and then at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad as in patient up to 19-6- 1997. He became disabled from driving and Kattangur police registered Crime No.46 of 1997. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the other lorry. While the owner of the lorry remained ex parte, the insurer denied the claims and contended that the owner and insurer of the appellant’s lorry are also necessary parties and that the appellant did not state that he did not make any claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident, the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and the liability of the respondents for the same. During the enquiry, it examined PWs.1 to 3 and RW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.18 and B.1 and B.2. It rendered the impugned award, firstly accepting the responsibility of the other lorry driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving based on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 corroborated by the documents relating to the crime registered by the police ending with the charge sheet. The Tribunal, in assessing the compensation payable, referred to the evidence of PW.1 and his documents in detail and noted that the concerned persons, who issued the certificates, were not examined and further noted that compensation of Rs.25,000/- was awarded in I.A.No.1058 of 2001 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- towards loss of income for two months, Rs.2,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses, apart from the earlier awarded amount of Rs.25,000/- and in the total compensation of Rs.36,000/-, the Tribunal directed the deduction of the earlier amount. While noting that the policy of insurance was subsisting for the vehicle in question, the Tribunal also noted that in O.P.No.920 of 1997 or W.C.P.No.13 of 1999, no amount was ordered to be paid as compensation or had in fact been paid. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. and proportionate costs on the compensation of Rs.36,000/-. The claimant was aggrieved by not granting the entire compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and contended herein that the fractures and other severe injuries were inadequately compensated and so were the pain and suffering and the medical expenses. The claimant, therefore, desired the full compensation to be granted. Sri K. Jagadeshwar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R. Venkat Rao, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent are heard and none entered appearance for the 1st respondent. Insofar as the responsibility of the driver of the other lorry for the accident with his rash and negligent driving, the ownership of the lorry with the 1st respondent and its subsisting valid insurance with the 2nd respondent are concerned, no party disputed the same and hence, the only questions left are about the accident and its consequences. Even RW.1 did not dispute the happening of the accident and the positive evidence of the witnesses was sufficiently corroborated by the documents relating to the registration of crime and its investigation by the independent statutory investigating agency. From the same oral and documentary evidence, it can also be deduced that PW.1 undoubtedly suffered a number of injuries. Hence, what remains to be decided is the quantum of compensation to be awarded. PW.1-the injured in his evidence reiterated his claims, of course, with an element of exaggeration and PW.2 also corroborated the claims of PW.1 about PW.1 sustaining severe injuries. The evidence of RW.1 is about PW.1 making claims in two other proceedings, but not contradicting the claims of PW.1 in this regard and Ex.A.2-injury certificate refers to 3 lacerated injuries and the head injury. Ex.A.7-Discharge card issued by Osmania General Hospital, referred to a multiple brain slim injury. There was Ex.A.5-Certificate issued by Orthopaedic Surgeon about PW.1 suffering physical disablement in consequence of the injuries suffered in the accident, more particularly resulting in 40% physical disability due to painful restriction in the movement of left thumb and weakness on the left side of the body. Though it is true that the persons, who issued the certificates are not examined, it should be noted that there was no specific denial on behalf of the respondents and there was no specific cross-examination about the genuineness or bonafides of these documents. If so, the seriousness of the injuries and their consequences resulting in hospitalization of the injured for not less than 19 days has to be adequately compensated. The claimant can be safely considered entitled to adequate sum for pain and suffering in respect of the fractures and even assuming that the fractures are not proved by the medical evidence in respect of multiple brain injury and the various other injuries on the body resulting in hospitalization for 19 days, the claimant can be reasonably granted Rs.20,000/- claimed by him under this head. During the period of hospitalization, he would have undoubtedly required an attendant to assist him and towards attendant charges, extra nourishment, expenses for medicines, which could not have been provided by the Government hospital, transport, damage to the clothing and other pecuniary and non- pecuniary damages, a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- should be safely assessed to be granted. The monthly income of the injured was assessed at Rs.2,000/- by the Tribunal and the period of disablement from attending to his regular work can be considered to be about 3 months and Rs.6,000/- should be granted under that head. That apart, the evidence of PW.1 shows that there was 40% disability due to painful restriction in the movement of left thumb and the weakness on the left side of the body, which was a permanent partial disability and even if the other claims of PW.1 were an exaggeration, what was stated by Ex.A.5, which was not contradicted, would have to be adequately compensated by grant of another Rs.20,000/-. Granting of loss of future earnings of the claimant due to the permanent disability should also be assessed at Rs.10,000/-. An element of guess and estimate are inevitable in such estimate, but keeping in view the facts and circumstances, it can be considered that grant of compensation of Rs.66,000/- in total would be granting just and adequate compensation out of which Rs.25,000/- already granted towards no fault liability has to be given credit to. In view of the length of time for which the interest has to be paid on the enhanced amount of Rs.30,000/-, it can be restricted to 6% p.a., while of course proportionate costs shall follow suit. The impugned award has to be modified accordingly. In the result, the award dated 29-7-2002 in O.P.No.885 of 1997 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment with proportionate costs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award. The appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 31-01-2011 Ksn