HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.386 of 2001 Between: Chilaka Ramulu Appellant And Tirumalaraju Krishna Murthy Raju and others. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.386 of 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.42 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Ist Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, dated 26-08-1997. 2. The appellant filed the claim petition for a compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh alleging that when he was going to Hanuman Junction along with cattle on 01-12-1992, two lorries driven rashly and negligently in a high speed without blowing horn and without observing the traffic rules came that way and the lorry coming from behind dashed against him resulting in grievous multiple injuries, while he was driving his cattle to avoid the opposite coming lorry. He claimed to have been treated at Government Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru, and claimed to have suffered permanent disability. 3. The drivers and owners of the vehicles remained ex parte. 4. The respondents 3 and 6, the insurers, contested the claim contending that there is no specification as to which of the two lorries caused the accident and the compensation claimed is very high. The liability of the insurers, if any, is confined to the terms of respective insurance policies. 5. The Tribunal framed issues on the manner of the accident, the quantum of compensation and the liability of the respondents in respect of the same. During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on behalf of the petitioner, while no evidence was produced on behalf of the respondents 3 and 6. 6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award noting that there was no dispute about the factum of the accident and the involvement of the petitioner. The First Information Report, Ex.A-1 and the Certified copy of the Wound Certificate, Ex.A-2, were noted as corroborating the same, followed by the charge sheet in Ex.A-3. The Tribunal further noted that the evidence of P.W.1 was that the lorry coming opposite to him had nothing to do with the accident and it was only the other lorry that hit him. The Tribunal therefore concluded that respondents 4 to 6 are not liable to pay any compensation to P.W.1 as their lorry was not involved in hitting P.W.1 and as the police also found after investigation that the driver of the lorry AAV 9979 is alone responsible, the respondents 1 to 3 are liable to compensate the petitioner as the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of their lorry. The Tribunal further noted that as per Ex.A-2, Wound Certificate, the petitioner suffered tenderness of the right shoulder and an abrasion of the lateral aspect of the right knee and tenderness of the right hip. The injuries were observed to be simple in nature and the petitioner was noted to have been hospitalized from 01-12-1992 to 17-02-1993 as per the evidence of P.W.2, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, in the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru, who treated P.W.1. While it was observed that the petitioner did not produce any evidence to show the alleged medical expenditure and that the treatment at the hospital for the petitioner would have been free, the Tribunal further noted that it is only because P.W.1 was diabetic, he developed hyper sensitivity to the medicines administered resulting in complications, which cannot be considered to be the direct result of accident. The Tribunal also noted that no surgery was conducted on P.W.1 and therefore, the compensation was considered payable at Rs.1500/- for the loss of earnings and Rs.3,000/- for the simple injury, making a total of Rs.4,500/-. Such compensation was awarded against respondents 1 to 3 with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 12% per annum. 7. The petitioner challenged the said award in this appeal contending that when the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A- 5 clinchingly established that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries, he could have been found entitled to the compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh as claimed. The consequences suffered by the petitioner, who is a diabetic, should have been taken into account and the medical expenditure should have been awarded as claimed. The petitioner, who suffered hyper sensitivity with the medicines administered, should have been appropriately compensated and hence, the appeal. 8. Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri B.Devanand, learned standing counsel for R-6 and Sri Kota Subbarao, learned standing counsel for R-3, are heard. 9. The point for consideration is what would be reasonable quantum of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled from respondents 1 to 3. 10. Insofar as dismissal of the claim petition against respondents 4 to 6 is concerned, there was no challenge to the award by anybody and the said conclusion has to be considered as having become final. The conclusions of the Tribunal about the truth of the accident with no involvement of the lorry relating to respondents 4 to 6 and involvement of the lorry relating to the respondents 1 to 3 have to be considered as having become final. If so, the liability of respondents 1 to 3 to jointly and severally compensate the petitioner justly and adequately in respect of the consequences of the accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry AAV 9979 cannot be in dispute. 11. Coming to the quantum of compensation, admittedly, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 proved positively that P.W.1 was hospitalized from 01-12-1992 to 17-02-1993, during which period he was patently disabled from having his regular earnings from coolie work. The petitioner can be presumed to have been deprived of such income from coolie work for the said period of 2 ½ months and the minimum wages payable for the said labourers in the relevant period at least could have been taken into account by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation for loss of earnings. The real wages would have been something more than the statutory minimum wages and the loss on account of loss of earnings during that period could have been reasonably estimated. Estimate of such loss at only Rs.500/- is grossly low and inadequate and therefore, the loss of earnings can be considered to be about Rs.10,000/- for the entire period in the absence of any specific evidence about the statutory minimum wages or the then prevailing real wages. Similarly the injuries as suffered might have been simple but even according to the acceptance of the evidence of P.W.2 by the Tribunal, P.W.1 definitely developed complications during that period due to his being a diabetic and due to his hyper sensitivity to the medicines administered. The complications that developed making P.W.1 undergo treatment as in- patient for about 2 ½ months are the direct and proximate result of the accident and cannot be considered to be too remote a consequence that cannot be linked with the accident. If so, though the injuries were simple, they also should have been appropriately compensated with a minimum sum of Rs.5,000/- and on a reasonable estimate of the compensation payable by respondents 1 to 3, awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/- would be just and appropriate. As the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, it has to be liberally interpreted in favour of granting just and reasonable compensation to the injured and hence, it has to be concluded that the compensation must be enhanced to Rs.15,000/- with proportionate costs and consequential interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 12. Therefore, the award in O.P.No.42 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Ist Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, dated 26-08-1997 is modified and the compensation is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- payable by the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally with proportionate costs and with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on Rs.4,500/- and at 7.5% per annum on Rs.10,500/- from the date of presentation of the petition till the date of realisation and the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation forthwith on payment or deposit by the respondents 1 to 3. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part without costs. _________________ 2nd August 2010 KVR