HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A. No. 3534 of 2003 And CMA No. 3537 of 2003 And CMA. No. 4446 of 2003 COMMON ORDER: These three appeals are being disposed of together as they arise out of three different claims in respect of three different persons, who sustained injuries in the same accident. 2. There is no dispute about factum of accident and also about the claimants sustaining injuries in that accident. The lower Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of jeep bearing No. AP 1C 3329, in which all the injured were travelling. 3. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that it is a case of collision between MSRTC bus bearing No. MH 20D 2074 and a jeep in which the injured were travelling and that the lower Tribunal should have apportioned negligence between the two vehicles. As per evidence on record and that of the injured as PW-1 in all the cases, the jeep driver was at fault and he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. There is no contra evidence on behalf of the insurance company. FIR relating to this accident was registered against the jeep driver. Therefore, the lower Tribunal rightly held that driver of the jeep was at fault. 4. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that out of the three claims, one claimant is driver of the jeep and two other claimants are passengers in that jeep and that the said jeep is a private jeep being run as a stage carriage and that therefore, the jeep was driven in contravention of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. There is no evidence on record to show that the injured claimants, who were passengers in the jeep, were fare paid passengers and that the jeep was being run as a stage carriage. Simply because the jeep was carrying some persons other than the owner in it, one cannot jump to the conclusion that it was being run as a stage carriage and that the persons travelling in the jeep were fare paid passengers. I find that there is no violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 5. The appellant-insurance company disputed quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal in the awards dated 28.2.2003. The lower Tribunal awarded at the rate of Rs.15,000/- for each grievous injury and at the rate of Rs.3,500/- or Rs.3000/- for each simple injury. The said amount is not in any way excessive. Apart from granting specific compensation for injuries, the lower Tribunal awarded some more amount towards pain and suffering. Compensation is awarded for the injuries, since the injured suffered pain and suffering because of those injuries. When specific compensation is awarded for grievous and simple injuries in particular, the question of awarding separate compensation towards the head of pain and suffering may not arise at all. 6. The lower Tribunal awarded Rs.5000/- towards extra nourishment and transport charges. The said amount is a reasonable amount. The lower Tribunal awarded loss of earnings to the extent of Rs.6,000/- for the period of treatment, taking the period as three months. Since all the injured suffered serious and grievous injuries, loss of earnings granted by the lower Tribunal for three months at the rate of Rs.6,000/- to each of them cannot be disputed and is appropriate. 7. As far as medical expenses are concerned, the claimants filed bunch of medical bills in each case, apart from filing bills issued by Saivani Hospital, Hyderabad. No doctor or person connected with Saivani Hospital is examined to speak to the treatment taken in that hospital and payments said to have been made in that hospital. Therefore, I find that those bills and discharge summaries issued by Saivani Hospital cannot be taken into account as they are not properly proved by the claimants by examining any doctor who treated them in Saivani Hospital. At the same time, the claimants are entitled for reimbursement of medical expenses covered by bills of merchandise purchased by them and also some more amount over and above the same. 8. In CMA No. 3534 of 2003, the claimant is entitled for Rs.40,500/- towards three simple injuries and two grievous injuries including pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and transport charges and Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings. Thus, in total, the compensation amount comes to Rs.71,500/- (Rs.40,500 + Rs.20,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.6,000/- = Rs.71,500/-). 9. In CMA No. 3537 of 2003, the claimant is entitled for Rs.39,000/- towards three simple injuries and two grievous injuries including pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenditure, Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and transport charges and Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment. Total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 70,000/- (Rs.39,000/- + Rs.20,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.6,000/- = Rs.70,000/-). 10. In CMA No. 4446 of 2003, the claimant is entitled for Rs.45,000/- for three grievous injuries including pain and suffering, Rs.19,118/- towards medical expenditure, Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and transport charges and Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings. Total amount of compensation comes to Rs.75,118/- (Rs.45,000/- + Rs.19,118/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.6,000/- = Rs.75,118/-). CMA No. 3534 of 2003: In the result, the appeal is disposed of accordingly, without costs altering the compensation amount from Rs.1,15,472/- to Rs.71,500/-. CMA No. 3537 of 2003: In the result, the appeal is disposed of accordingly, without costs altering the compensation amount from Rs.96,384/- to Rs.70,000/-. CMA No. 4446 of 2003: In the result, the appeal is disposed of accordingly, without costs altering the compensation amount from Rs.95,118/- to Rs.75,118/-. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt: 09-12-2010