IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4535 of 2003 Between: K. Upender Reddy .. Appellant AND Smt. Syeda Fatima Unissa and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 4-8-2003 in O.P.No.725 of 2000 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar. The appellant claimed to be then aged 26 years and working as car mechanic on a monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- was going as a pillion rider on a two wheeler when lorry No.AP-11-U 1944 coming in the opposite direction dashed against the scooter on 28-09-1999 at about 8.30 P.M. The lorry was driven rashly and negligently in high speed and it was owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. The police registered Crime No.220 of 1999 and the appellant suffered fracture of right leg and bleeding injuries all over the body. He was confined to bed for a considerable time and had to spend a huge amount towards medical expenses. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. While the owner of the vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer put the claimant to strict proof of the allegations denying the contentions of the claimant and further pleading that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant himself. The claim was also opposed as excessive. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident, the subsistence of the insurance with the 2nd respondent and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation. The Tribunal examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.15 during the course of enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly holding that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry for which purpose it relied on the injured PW.1’s evidence corroborated by Exs.A.1 and A.2-First Information Report and Charge Sheet and not controverted by any other evidence. The Tribunal also noted that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to justly and adequately compensate the injured PW.1 as a valid insurance policy was in subsistence at the relevant time. In assessing the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal referred to the evidence of PW.2, the doctor, who treated PW.1 and awarded Rs.30,000/- for the compound fracture to correct which PW.1 was subjected to two surgeries as an inpatient in the hospital from 28-09-1999 to 13-10-1999. The Tribunal also considered the disability certified by PW.2 at 40% and taking the said disability as temporary, awarded Rs.15,000/- as compensation for such disability. The Tribunal also analyzed the various bills showing the medical expenses filed by the claimant and accepted only an expenditure of Rs.81,600/- as opposed to the claim for Rs.1,23,520-65ps. The total compensation of Rs.1,26,000/- was directed to carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs against both the respondents. The appellant challenges the quantum of compensation in this appeal contending that the full claim of the claimant ought to have been allowed in the light of oral and documentary evidence on record. Heard Smt. G. Niveditha, learned counsel representing Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G. Visweswar Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent- insurer, while the 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle remained unrepresented before this Court also. The finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the lorry driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving, the ownership of the vehicle with the 1st respondent, the subsisting insurance of the vehicle with the 2nd respondent and the joint and several liability of both the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the injured-PW.1 for the injuries and their consequences suffered due to the accident were not challenged by any party and has become final. The only question that remains for consideration is the quantum of just and adequate compensation to which the claimant is entitled. The evidence on record shows that the claimant was probablised to have suffered a compound fracture of right thigh for which he underwent surgery resulting in shortening of the right leg and a further surgery for removal of metal implants. Though no disability certificate from any authorized Medical Board has been filed before the Tribunal, the evidence of medical expert, who treated P.W.1, was not totally rejected by the Tribunal and the disability, though considered temporary by the Tribunal, was also attempted to be adequately compensated. The compensation awarded towards injury/pain and suffering at Rs.30,000/- and for the temporary disability at Rs.15,000/- need no interference. Similarly, the medical expenses were very carefully analyzed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal had given cogent reasons for not accepting some of the bills produced by the claimant, which were either duplicated or were not proved by examining the concerned person. The quantum of compensation also needs no interference. However, the Tribunal did not award any sum towards loss of earnings of the injured and compensating the claimant for pain and suffering and temporary disability is distinct from the liability to compensate him for the loss of earnings. The Tribunal itself assessed the loss of earnings for such disability at Rs.15,000/- when the same was made the basis for compensating the temporary disability and therefore, a sum of Rs.15,000/- has to be awarded towards loss of earnings. The Tribunal also did not award any sum towards expenses for transport, extra nourishment, damage to clothing, attendant charges and any other inevitable expenses during the period of hospitalization and disablement and quantifying such pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to which the claimant is entitled, a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded. The enhancement of compensation already awarded by Rs.20,000/- is, therefore, answering the need to grant just and adequate compensation to the claimant. In view of the length of time for which the interest has to be paid on the enhanced compensation, the same can be restricted to 6% p.a. and proportionate costs, of course, have to be granted on the enhanced compensation. In the result, the award dated 4-8-2003 in O.P.No.725 of 2000 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar, is modified by awarding a further sum of Rs.20,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award and the appeal is allowed in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 17-03-2011 Ksn