*THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY +M.A.C.M.A.No.2220 of 2006 % 23-02-2010 #Mulakala Venkata Ramana ..... Appellant AND $1.Sri Valigonda Ramesh and 2 others. .....Respondents ! Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.V.Kishore Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: None appeared Counsel for Respondent No.3: Mr.N.Mohan Krishna <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: (2009) 6 SCC 121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.2220 of 2006 Between: Mulakala Venkata Ramana ..... Appellant AND 1.Sri Valigonda Ramesh and 2 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.V.Kishore Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: None appeared Counsel for Respondent No.3: Mr.N.Mohan Krishna The Court made the following : Judgment: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), arises out of award, dated 16th May, 2005, in M.V.O.P.NO.519 of 2002, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum- VI Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court) Narsapur (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The claimant in the OP is the appellant in this appeal. This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant feeling dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded to him for the injuries, he has suffered in the accident that has taken place on 27th September, 2001. On the said date, when the appellant was travelling in his coconut-laden lorry, bearing registration No.AEN 6489, a van, bearing registration No.AP 9V 5666, belonging to respondent No.1, driven by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, dashed against his lorry, resulting in serious injuries to him. The appellant was treated, initially in Vijayawada Government Hospital for a period of three months and, later in a private Nursing Home called Kay Vee Hospital, Eluru, wherein he was an inpatient for a much longer period. The appellant, therefore, filed the abovementioned OP for payment of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under various heads. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.56,000/- under different heads, which are as under: “Rs.12,000/-for pain and suffering, Rs.12,000/- for loss of income during the period of hospitalization, Rs.2,000/-for extra nourishment, Rs.15,000/-towards permanent disability and Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses.” At the hearing, Sri V.Kishore, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding proper compensation under two heads viz., reimbursement of medical expenses and loss of income towards permanent disability. Sri N.Mohan Krishna, learned Counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company opposed the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant and sought to sustain the award of the Tribunal. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. Taking the first contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant regarding the medical expenses, in support of the claim for award of Rs.75,000/- towards medical expenses, the appellant-claimant has filed Ex.A.6- a bunch of medical bills and Ex.A.7- medical prescriptions issued by the Kay Vee Hospital, Eluru. The Tribunal has refused to rely on these medical bills by adopting a strange reasoning that the appellant-claimant, having undergone treatment for three months in Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, unnecessarily joined in a private hospital later. The Tribunal has gone to the extent of disbelieving the evidence of PW.2- the orthopedic surgeon, who treated the appellant at Kay Vee Hospital, Eluru, stating that no medical record was produced in support of his evidence. In my opinion, the Tribunal has adopted a pedantic approach in rejecting the medical bills and the evidence of PW.2- the orthopedic surgeon, who treated the appellant in the private hospital. PW.2, in his evidence, has clearly stated that the left thigh and right leg of the appellant were operated at Vijayawada University General Hospital; that the right leg surgery failed and got infected and; that he has treated the appellant. No suggestion was made to this witness, on behalf of the respondents, that the appellant has not undergone surgery in Kay Vee Hospital. The reasoning of the Tribunal that, when free treatment in Government General Hospital was available, there was no reason for the appellant to join in a private hospital cannot be appreciated. PW.2 has categorically stated that the surgery conducted on the appellant’s right leg at Vijayawada University General Hospital has failed. This was the obvious reason for the appellant to join in the private hospital in Eluru. Ordinarily, an accident victim has every discretion to get the best of the treatments, be it in a Government General Hospital or in a Corporate Hospital. There cannot be any restriction in this regard. Unless there is a proper plea and conclusive evidence to show that either the victim has not undergone such treatment in private hospital or that the hospital or medical expenses are bloated up, the Tribunals cannot discard the claim of the victims wherever such claims are found bona fide and genuine. In this case, as already noted, PW.2- the qualified orthopedic surgeon, who conducted surgery on the appellant, was categoric in his testimony that the appellant has taken treatment for about six months. Apart from this, the appellant filed Ex.A.9- disability certificate issued by the Chairman –cum- DCHS, District Medical Board, West Godavari District. A look at the photograph of the appellant on the said certificate shows that his right leg was in the process of healing and that the injury was very grave to the extent of a near mutilation of the leg. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has lost sight of this crucial evidence in rejecting the medical bills. The total amount, in respect of which Ex.A.6- medical bills have been produced, comes to around Rs.40,000/- as observed by the Tribunal. As against this amount, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.15,000/-. In my opinion, the appellant is entitled to the sum of Rs.40,000/-, as his claim is supported by the medial bills to that extent, as against his claim of Rs.75,000/-. As regards the second contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant regarding award of compensation for loss of income towards permanent disability, it is to be seen that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- therefor. Even in respect of a claim made under Section 163-A of the Act, Schedule II provides for caliculation of loss of income on account of permanent disability. Therefore, in a claim for compensation, made under Section 166 of the Act, for sustaining injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle concerned, I do not find any reason to deny the same to the victim of the accident. The Tribunal has not taken this aspect into consideration while awarding a meager sum of Rs.15,000/-. Even according to the Tribunal, the claimant must have been earning atleast Rs.2,000/- per month at the time when the accident has occurred. As the admitted age of the claimant was 27 years as on the date of the accident, the relevant multiplier, as laid down in Sarala Verma (Smt.) & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], should be 18. On a proper caliculation, the appellant should be entitled to more than Rs.1 lakh towards loss of future income taking the permanent disability at 30%, as evident from Ex.A.10- wound certificate, issued by the District Medical Board, West Godavari District. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to restrict the compensation under this head to Rs.50,000/-, in addition to Rs.15,000/-, which was awarded by the Tribunal towards permanent disability. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed by modifying the award of the Tribunal as under: The appellant is entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income on account of permanent disability and Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses, in addition to the amounts of Rs.12,000 towards pain and suffering, Rs.12,000/- towards loss of income, Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.15,000/- towards permanent disability, awarded by the Tribunal. Ultimately, the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,16,000/-. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 23rd February, 2010 Note: LR copies to be marked. B/o lur [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121