IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A. No.1450 of 2002 Between: Chalumuri Ravi, being minor rep. by his father and guardian Sri Chalumuri Suryanarayana .. Appellant AND Allada Sreerama Murthy and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P. No.41 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Vizianagaram, dated 25-07-2000. The factual background for the appeal is that the petitioner, who was a minor at the time of the motor accident, was travelling in city bus AAS 3974 as a passenger by paying fare on 15-11-1996 at about 1.30 P.M. When he and his mother were so travelling, the 1st respondent to the claim/driver of the bus drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, due to which the bus turned turtle resulting in multiple grievous injuries to the petitioner all over the body. He was taken to Government hospital, Vizianagaram and from there to King George hospital, Visakhapatnam and he was under treatment as in-patient for about two months and also out-patient for about three months. He was, in fact, taking treatment for the injuries even by the time of the petition spending huge amounts towards medicines, transport, extra nourishment and other incidental expenses. The grievous injuries resulted in permanent disability to the petitioner and the police, Vizianagaram Rural registered Crime No.179 of 1996 against the 1st respondent to the claim under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The 2nd respondent to the claim is the owner and the 3rd respondent therein is the insurer for the vehicle and all the three respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner justly and adequately to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/- in view of the subsistence of the insurance policy issued by the 3rd respondent in respect of the vehicle. While the driver and owner of the vehicle remained ex parte, the insurer contested the claim denying its liability and claiming the compensation claimed to be excessive. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the petitioner to compensation. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4, B.1 and X.1 were marked during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting Ex.A.1 first information report, Ex.A.3 Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report and Ex.A.4 charge-sheet in C.C. No.651 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram as corroborating the evidence of P.W.2, the mother of the petitioner, who was accompanying him in the city bus at the time of the accident. As there was no contrary evidence and as the 1st respondent was not examined, the Tribunal concluded that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 1st respondent. The Tribunal also concluded that the insurer did not prove that any claims were made arising out of this accident for more than 36 persons, while the subsisting insurance policy was covering 36 passengers. The Tribunal further concluded that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 about the treatment given to the petitioner, corroborated by Ex.A.2 O.P. chit and Ex.X.1 case sheet showed that the petitioner sustained 42% burns on the left and right upper limbs, face, front and back of chest and left lower limb. The petitioner was also noted to have been admitted in the plastic surgery unit of King George hospital, Visakhapatnam and taking all the circumstances into account, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.12,000/- payable with interest at 12 per cent per annum and proportionate costs. The petitioner is before this Court with this appeal being aggrieved by not granting the compensation as claimed at Rs.1,00,000/- in spite of his suffering 42% burns all over the body and his being treated for more than two months as in-patient and for three months as out-patient. He also relied on the heavy expenses incurred for undergoing plastic surgery and desired that the entire compensation as claimed be awarded. Heard Sri G. Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G. Purushotham Rao, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent, while none entered appearance on behalf of the 2nd respondent and the appeal against 1st respondent was dismissed for default as per Court order, dated 25-09-2008. In so far as the conclusion of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the 1st respondent-driver for causing the accident due to his rash and negligent driving is concerned, none of the parties have challenged the same and the said conclusion had become final. Similarly the conclusion about subsistence of Ex.B.1 insurance policy and the claim being not beyond the permissible number of passengers covered by the policy also remained unchallenged even by the insurer. Therefore, the only question that remains for consideration is the quantum of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled. The fact that the petitioner suffered 42% burns on left and right upper limbs, face, front and back of chest and left lower limb, was considered probablised by Ex.X.1 and the claim that the petitioner was admitted in plastic surgery unit of King George hospital, Visakhapatnam was also not considered improbable by the Tribunal, though it observed about the case-sheet not disclosing conduct of any surgery on the petitioner. The burn injuries have been concluded by the Tribunal to have been sustained at six places on the body of the petitioner and the trauma, pain and suffering which the petitioner, then aged about 10 years, must have suffered with 42% burns, is but to be imagined. The treatment of the petitioner as in-patient for two months and as outpatient for more than three months as claimed in the petition and by P.Ws.1 and 2, was not controverted by any other evidence and the petitioner must have suffered absolute discomfort and inconvenience during the entire period of treatment. P.W.1, the father and P.W.2, the mother of the petitioner were not contradicted by any other evidence by the insurer and if so, notwithstanding that no medical evidence was produced by the petitioner in the shape of examining the doctors, who treated the petitioner at the relevant time, there was no reason to discredit Ex.A.2 O.P. chit and Ex.X.1 case sheet, which themselves show the probability of the truth of the claims of the petitioner. If so, for a period of two months when he was in-patient, the petitioner at the age of 9 to 10 years must have had the necessity of a regular attendant throughout and even during the period of subsequent treatment as outpatient for three months, some attendants must have been accompanying him to the hospital and back. Apart from such expenses of attendants, the petitioner also must have suffered much expense towards travel, extra nourishment, medicines which were not supplied by the hospital and other incidental expenses, all of which must have accumulated to a significant figure keeping in view the prolonged treatment. Though there were no medical bills or receipts or vouchers or prescriptions to show the expenditure as opined by the Tribunal, still the ordinary and natural course of human events probablised that the petitioner’s parents must have spent considerably for the treatment of the petitioner throughout for all other incidental expenses. Apart from the same, 42% burn injuries on the body and admission in plastic surgery unit probablised the claim that subsequently the petitioner might have undergone plastic surgery on his face and notwithstanding any such treatment or surgery, the fact remains that the deformity in appearance of the petitioner would not have been totally erased, which physical deformity he should carry throughout his life. The petitioner ought to have been compensated separately for the medical expenses and other incidental expenses stated above, permanent disfigurement which he had suffered and loss of amenities of life, pain, suffering, discomfort, inconvenience and all other permissible heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. In the absence of any specific evidence on these aspects and keeping in view the age of the petitioner, the extent of his injuries and suffering and all other relevant circumstances, grant of compensation of Rs.45,000/- in total would meet the necessity to grant just and adequate compensation to the petitioner. Though an element of guess and estimate is inevitable to come to such a conclusion, such grant of compensation with grant of interest at 6 per cent per annum on the enhanced portion of compensation from the date of the petition till payment and proportionate costs will answer the necessity to reasonably compensate the petitioner, though monetary compensation by any measure can never bring back the petitioner to his original physical state. Therefore, the award in question has to be modified accordingly. In the result, the award in M.V.O.P. No.41 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram, dated 25-07-2000 is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.33,000/- with interest at 6 per cent per annum thereon 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. The appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs and no directions need be given at this distance of time regarding disbursement of the compensation, more so when the petitioner would have become a major by efflux of time. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-08-2010 Svv