IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTYFOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4755 of 2003 Between: Muppal Pramodini .. Appellant AND M. Ramkishan and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.235 of 2000 dated 13-2-2003 passed in pursuance of the common order in O.P.No.231 of 2000 and batch on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad. The factual background for the appeal is that the appellant and others were travelling in Tata Sumo jeep bearing No.MH.26-C- 1463, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, on 2-11-1999 and near Ratnapur Kandli village, the jeep dashed against a stationed tractor-trolley loaded with sand due to rash and negligent driving by the jeep driver. The appellant and other inmates of the jeep received injuries and were treated at Government Hospital, Nirmal and at Government Headquarters Hospital, Adilabad. The appellant claimed to have taken treatment at Phadke Hospital, Yeothmal and other Hospitals. The appellant claimed a compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- through her father and natural guardian in respect of fracture of the right leg and injuries on the head, left leg, both hands and face. She claimed to have incurred an expenditure of Rs.30,000/- for treatment and Rs.15,000/- for transport. The claim was contested only by the insurer and not by the owner of the jeep and the insurer contended that the claimant is put to strict proof of her averments. The non-joinder of the insurer and owner of the tractor was claimed to be fatal and the existence of a valid driving licence for the jeep driver and a valid permit for the jeep were also denied. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and in O.P.No.235 of 2000, the claimant was examined as PW.3 and she marked Exs.A.17 to A.25. The Tribunal rendered the common order, firstly concluding that PWs.1 to 6, the injured in all the cases, were corroborated by Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.7-docket order in C.C.No.489 of 1999. The Tribunal found that the driver of the jeep was convicted on admission and hence, it concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the jeep driver and hence, the driver, owner and insurer of the tractor- trailer are not necessary parties. The Tribunal also found that there was a valid and subsisting insurance policy with the 2nd respondent and as all the witnesses stated that they did not pay any money to the owner or driver of the jeep and in the absence of any contrary evidence for the insurer, no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy can be presumed. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal referred to the evidence of PW.3 and noted the injuries specified in the documents filed by her and as there was evidence only about the claimant undergoing a surgery with insertion of rods and not about any disability, the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.9,600/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses proved by the bills, Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.6,000/- towards compensation for loss of studies. On the rounded off compensation of Rs.45,000/-the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. and proportionate costs. The claimant was aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and filed the appeal requesting to take 20% permanent disability certified by the doctor into account and to grant balance of compensation, more so, in view of heavy expenses she incurred for treatment and the pain and agony she suffered. Heard Smt. Nunna Mangasree, learned counsel representing Sri N. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ch. Srinivas, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. None appeared for the 1st respondent before this Court. The appellant is declared as major by the order of this Court dated 29-12-2003 in CMAMP.No.15154 of 2003. The findings of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the jeep driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving, the ownership of the vehicle with the 1st respondent and its subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent remained unchallenged and have become final. The joint and several liability of both the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the claimant is, hence, not in dispute, while the quantum alone is to be adjudicated herein. Insofar as the permanent disability certified by Dr. Phadke is concerned, the said certificate-Ex.A.22 or the other documents relating to the treatment taken by PW.3 were not corroborated by examining any person connected with such treatment or certification of disability. The Tribunal doubted the competence of the doctor to issue disability certificate and that apart, the fracture of the right leg, abrasion and lacerated wound found on the person of PW.3 as per Ex.A.17-Injury Certificate do not appear in the natural course of human events to be capable of inflicting any permanent partial disability of 20% on the claimant. Keeping in view that it was only probablised that PW.3 suffered one grievous injury and two simple injuries, grant of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering cannot be faulted. Similarly, grant of Rs.9,600/- towards actual medical expenses proved by Ex.A.23-bunch of medical bills and grant of Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment are on a reasonable estimate made by the Tribunal. However, though the claimant produced bills worth Rs.9,500/- towards transport charges, the Tribunal limited the damages under that head to only Rs.2,000/- without assigning any reasons. So also, she was also granted only Rs.6,000/- towards compensation for loss of studies. The material on record shows that the claimant was a student of Intermediate at the age of 16 years at the time of accident and her father was only an attender in the Government Dispensary at Jainath village. The impact of the accident by the jeep dashing against the stationed tractor- trailer must have left PW.3 in a state of shock for a considerable time and the very nature of treatment would have disabled her from attending to her normal studies at least for a period of 2 to 3 months. The loss of three months for a student of Intermediate is not a damage that can be adequately quantified in terms of money and each day at that stage of student career will be invaluable for an adolescent, the said course being a gateway for the youngster to enter into any professional course. Therefore, the compensation for loss of studies should have been quantified at a higher level. Even assuming that there is an element of exaggeration in claiming the transport charges, as the claim was supported by bills, at least half of the same would have been granted towards transport charges. If so, enhancing the compensation by another Rs.3,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.7,000/- towards loss of studies may be reasonable and just in which assessment, of course, an element of guess and estimate are inevitable. Therefore, enhancing the compensation by Rs.10,000/- will be granting just and adequate compensation. But, in view of the length of time for which interest has to be paid on the enhanced compensation, the same can be limited to 6% p.a. with proportionate costs. Accordingly, the award dated 13-2-2003 in O.P.No.235 of 2000 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Adilabad, is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal and the appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-02-2011 Ksn