IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Apepal Nos.635 and 967 of 2003 C.M.A. No.635 of 2003: Between: Syed Hasanuddin .. Appellant AND K. Kishan and another .. Respondents C.M.A. No.967 of 2003: Between: The United India Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Divisional Manager, Ameerpet, Hyderabad .. Appellant AND Syed Hasanuddin and another .. Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals are directed against the award in O.P. No.165 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, dated 21-10-2002. The factual background for the appeals is that the claimant was going on motor cycle No.AP 12A 9198 on 03-05-2000 at about 11 A.M. and near Nagasanipalli, vehicle No.AP 10T 6693, driven rashly and negligently in high speed, dashed the claimant resulting in multiple grievous injuries and fractures. The claimant was treated at Gandhi hospital and then at Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences and the police registered a case under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code against the lorry driver. The claimant was a mechanic running a workshop at Narsapur earning Rs.3,500/- per month and he claimed a compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- under various heads from the owner and insurer of the lorry. While the owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer denied the allegations of the claimant specifically and contended that the compensation claimed is also excessive. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the just compensation to be awarded and during the enquiry, examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.18 and B.1. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of the injured P.W.1 about the manner of the accident, corroborated by the contents of Ex.A.1 first information report and Ex.A.2 charge-sheet. Noting the absence of any evidence of the respondents in this regard, the Tribunal concluded that the rash and negligent driving of the lorry caused the accident. The Tribunal also noted that Ex.B.1 insurance policy confirms the ownership of the lorry with the 1st respondent and its subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent, both of whom were vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of the lorry driver during the course of his employment. The Tribunal then referred to Ex.A.3 wound certificate, Exs.A.4 to A.8 cards relating to the treatment of P.W.1. The Tribunal also referred to the evidence of P.W.2, the orthopaedic surgeon, who treated the victim since 04- 08-2000 and who issued Ex.A.9 disability certificate about the mal- union of the fractures, stiffness of right ankle and shortening of right knee. The Tribunal noted that all the fractures and injuries make it just to award Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal referred to Ex.A.11 licence and Ex.A.12 income certificate filed by P.W.1, but assessed the income of P.W.1 at Rs.2,500/- per month only. The Tribunal assessed the percentage of disability only at 30% and not at 55% as stated by P.W.2 considering the same to be on higher side. On such estimate, the loss of income was considered to be Rs.9,000/- per annum and multiplier of 18 as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act was applied. The loss of future income was assessed at Rs.1,62,000/-. The Tribunal also considered it just to award Rs.8,000/- towards past loss and Rs.4,000/- towards extra nourishment, transport and other expenses. It awarded only Rs.50,000/- towards medicines and treatment, as many bills under Ex.A.14 bunch do not have corresponding prescriptions. On a total compensation of Rs.2,54,000/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment and directed the compensation to be kept in fixed deposit for three years. The insurer challenged the said award in C.M.A. No.967 of 2003 contending that the claimant did not prove any of his allegations in the claim including the disability and P.W.2’s evidence itself shows union of the alleged fractures leaving no permanent disability. The claim was under ‘fault liability’ and could not have been assessed under ‘no fault liability’. The Tribunal was criticized for arriving at the earnings of the injured at Rs.2,500/- per month without any material and the liability fixed on the insurer was, therefore, requested to be reversed. The claimant filed C.M.A. No.635 of 2003 challenging the award and contending that the multiple fractures suffered by him were not properly appreciated and the percentage of disability could not have been reduced from 55%. The past and future loss of income should have been considered with reference to the disability and the cost of medicines and treatment should have been granted as claimed, while interest should have been awarded at 12 per cent per annum and hence, the claimant desired the balance of compensation claimed by him to be granted as claimed. Heard Sri K. Laxmi Prasad, learned standing counsel for the insurer and Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant. None entered appearance before this Court also for the owner of the lorry. The points that arise for consideration in these appeals are whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads can be reduced for the reasons claimed by the insurer or enhanced on the grounds claimed by the injured ? Points: A verification of the record of the claim petition received from the Tribunal did not disclose the insurer obtaining any permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in order to enable the insurer to contest the claim on all or any other grounds that are available to a person against whom the claim has been made. In the absence of such permission, the challenge to the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant under various heads cannot probably be entertained. The liability of the insurer and the owner jointly and severally to justly and adequately compensate the injured was also attempted to be questioned, but the findings about the ownership of the vehicle with the 1st respondent, its subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent to the claim and the rash and negligent driving of the lorry being the cause for the accident, cannot be assailed in the absence of any contrary evidence to the claim of P.W.1, corroborated by Exs.A.1, A.2 and A.16/B.1 etc. Coming to the quantum of compensation, though there was no absolute consistency between the claims of P.W.1 and the version of P.W.2, it is evident that the claimant suffered grievous injuries/fractures in the accident and grant of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering cannot be considered excessive. The assessment of future loss of income on the estimated monthly income of Rs.2,500/- in respect of 30% of permanent disability only is, in fact, conservative rather than liberal with no further scope for reduction under that head. The multiplier adopted is 18 as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and the marginal difference in multiplier with reference to Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] need not be taken cognizance, as it is only in approximation that the appropriate multiplier is arrived at depending on the facts of each case and the age of 26 years was also mentioned only in approximation. If he were aged a year less, the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is in tune with Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1 supra). The amounts granted towards past loss, extra nourishment, transport and other miscellaneous expenses even in the absence of any specific evidence are not low, while concerning the medicines and treatment notwithstanding Ex.A.14 bills, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.50,000/-. A bunch of medical bills, which are 133 in number, amounted in total of Rs.83,013-40 ps. and none of the bills appear to a naked eye to be manipulated or not genuine. In the absence of any reasons for suspecting the authenticity of the bills and given the nature of treatment undergone by the claimant at Gandhi hospital, Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences and Deccan College of Medical Sciences, Ex.A.14 bills need not have been disbelieved and the balance, which was disallowed, has to be, therefore, permitted to the claimant. While permitting such balance rounding off to a sum of Rs.33,000/-, interest to be awarded can be confined to 6 per cent per annum in view of the length of time for which such interest has to be paid by the insurer, which is also a custodian of public funds. These civil miscellaneous appeals have to be ordered accordingly. In the result, the award, dated 21-10-2002 in O.P. No.165 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.33,000/- (Rupees thirty three thousand only) with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award and C.M.A. No.635 of 2003 is partly allowed accordingly without costs and C.M.A. No.967 of 2003 is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 05-08-2011 Svv [1] 2009 ACJ 1298