IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2728 OF 2009 Between: Vankam Ramakrishna …Appellant A n d G.V.Sudarshan Reddy and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2728 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.12.2008 in M.V.O.P.No.94 of 2004, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II- Additional District Judge, Kadapa, at Proddatur (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the said claim application filed by the appellant herein, the claimant, was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.1 lakh with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The appellant herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17.11.2002. According to the claimant, on that day, when he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle, a lorry bearing No.AP 04 G 7065, driven in a rash and negligent manner, by its driver, dashed against the motor cycle, resulting in multiple injuries, including multiple fractures to the claimant and that he was taken to Government hospital, Proddatur and Kurnool and from there he was shifted to NIMS Hospital. He further pleaded that he is a photographer earning Rs.6,000/- and on account of the injuries, he suffered permanent disability. 4. The 1st respondent – owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-15 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The said finding is not seriously challenged by way of any appeal by the respondents. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Not satisfied with the award, the claimant preferred the present appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.. 7. The evidence on record, particularly the medical evidence of P.W.2, coupled with Ex.A-2 wound certificate, Ex.A-5 discharge summary, issued by NIMS Hospital, would support the contention of the claimant that he suffered multiple injuries, including fracture of both bones of the right forearm and fracture of left femur and that he took treatment initially at Proddutur and Kurnool and later shifted to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad and that he underwent surgery for implantation. The evidence on record also shows that there was compound fracture of right forearm and dislocation of the left hip joint. The claimant was stated to have undergone treatment as inpatient in the hospital. 8. The Tribunal awarded Rs.8,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering. As the claimant is shown to have suffered two grievous injuries, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering at the rate of Rs.5,000/- for each injury. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.32,000/- towards medical, transport and lodge expenses. The claimant filed Ex.A-14 bunch of four transport bills showing an expenditure of Rs.21,000/-, Ex.A-15 bunch of medical bills showing expenditure of Rs.18,183/- and Ex.A-9 hotel bill for Rs.4,750/-. The claimant is held entitled for the amounts covered by Exs.A-14 and A-15, but not hotel bill Ex.A-9. The claimant is, therefore, entitled for Rs.21,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.18,183/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards injuries without specifying under which head the said amount was awarded. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that as per the disability certificate Ex.A-4, the claimant sustained 40% physical disability and the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards the same. P.W.2, the doctor who issued Ex.A-4 testified that the claimant suffered 40% disability on account of mal-union fracture of both bones, which resulted in restricted movements of right forearm. The claimant is stated to be a photographer running a photo studio and he produced Ex.A-10 registration certificate of Sneha Photo Studio. There is, however, nothing in evidence to show the income of the claimant from the said business and whether there was any adverse impact on his earning capacity as a photographer on account of the disability sustained by him. In the absence of any such evidence, the question of estimating any loss of earning capacity on account of permanent disability does not arise. The amount of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is, therefore, to be taken towards loss of amenities of life on account of permanent disability and the same is left undisturbed, especially in the absence of any appeal by the respondents. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses and the same is, therefore, considered to be reasonable. The Tribunal did not, however, award any amount towards extra nourishment or attendant charges. Having regard to the fact that the claimant suffered multiple fracture injures and that he was hospitalized for considerable length of time, it is considered just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings, having regard to the fact that the claimant was hospitalized for about one month. Though the claimant has not adduced any evidence regarding the income, the said amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of earnings is considered to be reasonable. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on account of permanent disability, the claimant is not in a position to work as a photographer. There is, however, no evidence adduced by him to show that he has closed down the photo studio or that the injuries have adversely affected his earning capacity. 9. In the circumstances, the claimant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,19,183/-, rounded off to Rs.1,20,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal and at 6% from the date of filing of the appeal on the enhanced amount. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 11th November, 2011 Lrkm.