IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2378 of 2004 Between: Mondedla Mondaiah .. Appellant AND Syed Musthafa Ahmed Khadri & 2 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2378 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.7 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Warangal, dated 30.03.2001. 2. M.V.O.P.No.7 of 1999 and batch arising out of the same accident were disposed of by a common order and the claimants were injured when the jeep No.AP 36U 1098 in which they were travelling met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver. The claimant in M.V.O.P.No.7 of 1999 claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the jeep. 3. The owner of the jeep remained ex parte, while the driver and the insurer denied the allegations of the claimant. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident, the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and the relief to be granted. 5. During joint enquiry into the batch claims, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-13 were marked. In so far as this claim is concerned, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-10 relate to this claim. 6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting the evidence of the injured P.Ws.1 to 4 corroborated by Ex.A-1- First Information Report and Ex.A-7-Charge Sheet. The Tribunal concluded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver. The injuries on the person of P.W.1 were held to have been caused due to the accident and a contusion on the brain as stated in Ex.A-2 and fracture of right temporal bone as specified in the record of Jaya Hospital-Ex.A-5 were noted to be the injuries. On the strength of Ex.A-6-Salary Certificate, the Tribunal awarded Rs.6,000/- towards loss of income for two months, Rs.3,000/- towards transport, Rs.11,483.40 Ps. towards medicines, Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- towards continuing disability. Though there was no medical evidence, noting from its personal observation about the claimant being not able to walk freely and only with the help of a hand stick, the damages for permanent disability were granted. On the total amount of Rs.60,483/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. 7. The claimant questioned the said award in this appeal contending that the entire compensation should have been awarded in view of the disability and pain the claimant suffered due to the accident. The appropriate multiplier was not applied and, hence, the claimant desired the balance compensation claimed by him to be awarded. 8. Heard Sri A. Ravinder, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bathula Venkateswara Rao, learned standing counsel for the third respondent/insurer. The respondents 1 and 2/the driver and owner of the vehicle remained unrepresented before this Court. The appeal stood dismissed for default against respondents 1 and 2/driver and owner of the vehicle vide the order of this Court, dated 11.11.2003. 9. The finding of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent causing the accident is not challenged by any party and the link between the injuries and the accident is also not in question. The Tribunal held all the respondents to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation which finding was not challenged by the respondents in any manner. 10. Therefore, what remains for consideration is only the quantum of compensation. 11. The injuries caused to P.W.1 on account of the accident were a contusion on the brain and fracture of right temporal bone. The accident and the treatment were found by the Tribunal to have disabled P.W.1 probably for a period of two months on which, the loss of income was granted for two months based on Ex.A-6-Salary Certificate. Similarly, the cost of transport between the scene of offence and the hospitals at Hanmakonda and Hyderbad was also reasonably assessed at Rs.3,000/-. However, when it came to the cost of medicines and extra nourishment, only Rs.11,483.40 Ps. were awarded as per Ex.A-3-Case Sheet and the Tribunal, apart from what it considered as proved medical expenses, did not grant any sum towards extra nourishment, attendant charges, damage to clothing and other inevitable expenses during the period of hospitalization and disablement. Similarly, towards pain and suffering, it granted only Rs.20,000/- though the brain was injured and the right temporal bone was fractured. Under these heads, grant of a further sum of Rs.10,000/- may meet the requirement of just and adequate compensation in which assessment, of course, an element of guess and estimate becomes inevitable. So far as the permanent disability is concerned, the Tribunal which observed the claimant in flesh and blood noted that he was unable to walk freely and speak effectively. It compensated the same by grant of Rs.20,000/- which needs no interference. Therefore, enhancement of the compensation by Rs.10,000/- while granting a similar quantum of interest and costs on the same will meet the ends of justice. 12. In the result, the award, dated 30.03.2001, in M.V.O.P.No.7 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Warangal, is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, accordingly, in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 28th March, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2378 of 2004 Date: 28th March, 2011 KL