IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2729 of 2004 Between: Myakala Hanmandlu .. Appellant AND B.K. Kumar and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 21-04-1999 in O.P.No.82 of 1994 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, passed in pursuance of the common order in O.P.Nos.82 of 1994 and batch. The appellant and others were travelling in lorry ATT 3610 on 8-8-1993 at about 6.00A.M., when the lorry turned turtle near Mengaram village due to rash and negligent driving in high speed by the driver. Five persons died and the appellant and others sustained injuries in the accident and the appellant, therefore, sued the owner and insurer of the lorry for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Lingampet Police registered Crime No.54 of 1993 against the lorry driver and the appellant claimed that he became permanently disabled due to the injuries. The Tribunal tried four claim petitions arising out of the same accident together and while the owner of the lorry remained ex parte, the insurer contested the claims contending that the claimant and others were travelling as passengers in the lorry in respect of whom the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation due to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurer also claimed that the compensation claimed is also excessive. The Tribunal framed common issues in all the four claim petitions about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. The claims were tried together during the enquiry into which PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. The Tribunal rendered the common order leading to the impugned award in which it firstly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry in the light of uncontroverted evidence of PWs.1 to 4 corroborated by the documents produced by them. The Tribunal assessed the compensation payable to the appellant with reference to three simple injuries suffered by him as stated in Ex.A.5. For the three abrasions over the right side of the forehead, right eye brow and right side of the lower lip, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,100/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs against both the respondents jointly and severally. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the insurer is absolved from any liability due to violation of any terms and conditions of the policy, the appellant and others being passengers in the lorry. The appellant being aggrieved by the meagre compensation awarded approached this Court contending that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the entire sum of Rs.1,00,000/- claimed by him and failed to grant just and adequate compensation. The appeal was dismissed for default against the 1st respondent-owner of the lorry as per the orders of this Court dated 6-11-2003. Heard Sri L. Santha Ram, learned counsel representing Sri V. Tulasi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned counsel representing Sri Bathula Venkateswara Rao, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurer. The finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the lorry driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving is not challenged by any party and has become final. It is only the quantum of compensation jointly and severally payable by both the respondents that remains for consideration in this appeal. The only witness examined for the appellant is the appellant himself and he himself had produced Ex.A.5-wound certificate and also deposed about three abrasions he suffered on the forehead, right eye brow and right side lower lip. The abrasions were not claimed even by PW.3 to have resulted in any further complications and he did not claim the abrasions to have not healed completely in the natural course. The Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act provides only for a compensation of Rs.1,000/- for each simple injury, apart from any medical expenses, which can be proved to have been incurred by the injured. In the present case, though there was no proof of any medical expenses incurred by the appellant, for the three simple injuries, the Tribunal has granted Rs.6,100/- and even interest granted was also liberal being 12% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation apart from proportionate costs. There appears absolutely no ground or reason or evidence to support any enhancement of the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal and the appeal has to fail. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 16-03-2011 Ksn