IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4153 of 2003 Between: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant AND Shaik Jafar & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4153 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.51 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Adilabad, dated 20.05.2003. 2. The claimant before the Tribunal claimed to be travelling in Jeep No.AP 1D 90 on 21.05.1998 when at about 11.45 a.m., the jeep turned turtle due to the rash and negligent driving in high speed near Devapur cross-road. The claimant claimed to have suffered grievous and multiple injuries all over the body for which he was treated at Government Hospital, Adilabad and then at Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur (MS) from 22.05.1998 to 03.06.1998 and later at Srinivasa Nursing Home, Adilabad. He claimed to have spent Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and that at the age of 30 years, he was earning Rs.2,000/- per month as a private employee. Adilabad Rural Police registered Crime No.83 of 1998 and, hence, the claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/- from both the respondents jointly and severally. 3. The first respondent/owner of the vehicle remained ex parte, while the second respondent/insurer/appellant herein contested the claim denying the accident and involvement of the vehicle. The driver having a valid licence was also denied and the insurance of the vehicle also was questioned. Hence, the insurer desired the claim to be negatived. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the claimant sustaining injuries in the alleged accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver, the entitlement of the claimant to compensation, its quantum and against whom. 5. During the course of enquiry, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked and the petition for protection under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was allowed at the instance of the insurer. 6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly referring to the evidence of the injured P.W.1 who was corroborated by the First Information Report-Ex.A-1 and the other documents Exs.A-2 to A-10. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence for the respondents to contradict P.W.1 and it also observed that the injured was not a fare-paying passenger, and hence, did not flout the permit or the insurance policy. Hence, it concluded that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to justly and adequately compensate the injured claimant. The Tribunal noted the injuries mentioned in Ex.A-5-Discharge Card and granted a compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the simple injury, Rs.20,000/- for the grievous injury, Rs.4,326/- towards medical expenses proved by Exs.A-7 to A-9 and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. The total compensation of Rs.34,326/- was directed to carry interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. 7. The insurer challenged the award in this appeal contending that for the simple injury sustained by the claimant, excessive compensation was awarded under various heads and the conclusion about the claimant suffering any fractures was erroneous. 8. Heard Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad, learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri S. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the claimant/first respondent. The second respondent/owner of the vehicle remained unrepresented before this Court. 9. The conclusion of the Tribunal about the happening of the accident itself is sought to be questioned by Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad, learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurer though no such specific ground was taken in the grounds of appeal and the learned counsel referred to Ex.A-5-Discharge Card issued by the Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur (MS), in which it was stated that the claimant fell from a building the day earlier to 22.05.1998. While such a contention was not specifically taken in the counter filed by the insurer before the Tribunal nor was any such contention attempted to be probablised through the production of any oral or documentary evidence before the Tribunal, the accident was alleged to have occurred at about 11.30 a.m. on 21.05.1998 and at 6.15 p.m. on the same day, the First Information Report was registered by Adilabad Rural Police on recording the statement of the injured claimant at the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Adilabad. The Police obviously visited the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured claimant on receiving a Hospital Intimation from the Medical Officer concerned and even at the earliest point of time, the claimant stated that the accident occurred due to the jeep turning turtle due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver resulting in his suffering injuries at the waist. The First Information Report was, thus, registered soon after the accident without any questionable delay and was much before the recording of the cause for the injuries in Ex.A-5-Discharge Card at Nagpur. Ex.A-2-Out-Patient Ticket from the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Adilabad corroborates the probability of the registration of the crime under Ex.A-1-First Information Report on recording the statement of the injured at the hospital immediately after the accident. The statement in Ex.A-5 about any fall from a building on 21.05.1998 was not stated in Ex.A-5 to be based on the information from anybody. The basis or the source for such a statement in Ex.A-5 was not stated and none connected with Ex.A-5 was examined to probablise any such fall of the claimant from any building resulting in the injuries in such accident. P.W.1, in his evidence, was also not suggested about receiving any such injuries due to fall from a building and, in fact, it was suggested on behalf of the insurer that he was an unauthorized passenger among 15 passengers travelling in the jeep at the relevant time. Under the circumstances, a stray entry in Ex.A-5 cannot belittle the broad human probabilities arising out of the material on the record and the conclusion of the Tribunal that the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question was the cause for the accident cannot be deviated from. 10. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded, the medical expenses were attempted to be reimbursed only to the extent of actual expenses proved by Exs.A-7 to A-9. Towards pain and suffering in respect of one simple injury and one grievous injury only Rs.5,000/- were awarded which is, in fact, much less than the norms adopted even by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which it could have been Rs.6,000/-. Both the injuries and their consequences were attempted to be compensated by a lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/- which obviously included any expenses for transport, extra nourishment, damage to clothing, attendant charges, loss of earnings during the period of hospitalization and disablement and all other heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to which the claimant is entitled. The interest awarded at 9% per annum or the proportionate costs or the quantum of compensation, thus, do not appear to result in any unjust enrichment of the claimant and, hence, the award cannot be interfered with. 11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 23rd March, 2011 KL KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4153 of 2003 Date: 23rd March, 2011 KL