IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3281 of 2003 Between: The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Khammam. .. Appellant AND Sk. Abdul Babu and 2 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.1454 of 1998 dated 30-04-2003 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Khammam. The 1st respondent herein a minor represented by his father, claimed a compensation Rs.1,00,000/- from the driver and owner of the Ambassador Car, which hit him while he was going by walk on 8-4-1998 at 9-00 A.M., at Khammam. The State was also impleaded as 3rd respondent to the claim and the claimant claimed to have suffered fractures of right fore arm, right ramus, right chin and other injuries all over the body for which he was treated. While the driver remained ex parte, the 1st and 3rd respondents contested the claim denying any rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent and alleged negligence on the part of the boy himself. They denied the liability to pay any compensation. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined PW.1 and RW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 during the course of enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting the evidence of PW.1, the father of minor claimant, corroborated by Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2-Charge sheet and rejected the claims of the 2nd respondent examined as RW.1. The Charge Sheet filed by the statutory investigating agency after independent investigation was preferred than the interested claims of the driver of the Ambassador car. The Tribunal noted that Ex.A.3- Injury Certificate showed the fracture of right forearm, fracture of right ramus of mandible, loss of four teeth and an abrasion on the right side of the chin. The Tribunal found corroboration to the claims from Ex.A.6-X-rays and considered the treatment said to have been undergone by the claimant as per PW.1, but noted that the only medical bill filed was for a sum of Rs.168/-. Still considering the nature of injuries, age of the claimant, the physical and mental agony, the treatment, transport, extra nourishment and other expenses, the Tribunal considered it just to award a lump sum of Rs.60,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. The 1st respondent preferred this appeal contending that in the absence of any documentary evidence in proof of medical expenses, the grant of lump sum amount of Rs.60,000/- on assumptions and presumptions is without any basis. The curable injuries do not call for such huge compensation and there was also no rash and negligent driving on the part of the 2nd respondent. Hence, the 1st respondent desired the award to be reversed. Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned standing counsel for Zilla Parishad-the appellant and Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein/claimant are heard and the driver and the State were stated to be not necessary parties to the appeal. The points for consideration in this appeal are again about the responsibility for the accident and the just and adequate compensation, which has to be granted? The evidence of PW.1, the father of the claimant and RW.1, the driver is tainted with interestedness and it will be safe to look for independent corroboration to their claims. The earliest version in Ex.A.1-First Information Report is also attributing rash and negligent driving to RW.1 which resulted in the accident and there were no traces of any contributory negligence of the claimant deducible from the averments in Ex.A.1. Ex.A.2-Charge sheet was the result of independent investigation by the statutory agency and in the absence of any motives or reasons for deviating from truth, the conclusion in Ex.A.2 can also be taken as satisfactorily supporting the version of PW.1. The alleged sudden crossing of the road by the claimant without observing the Ambassador car as claimed by RW.1 cannot be considered probablised on such evidence and the conclusion of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent leading to the accident cannot be interfered with. Though it is true that the Tribunal did not specify the various heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, it was awarding towards compensation, even such a division would have in fact justified grant of much higher compensation than what was awarded by the Tribunal. If four teeth were lost and two fractures were suffered, apart from other simple injuries, the compensation awardable towards pain and suffering itself would have been about Rs.20,000/- to 30,000/- even under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, while much higher sums are usually awarded under that head in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimant, who was undoubtedly subjected to treatment for the injuries suffered as seen from the memorandum of evidence in Ex.A.2-Charge Sheet and Exs.A.3 to A.6-Medical certificate, prescriptions, bill and X-rays, is entitled to be reimbursed all the medical expenses and is further entitled to transport expenses, damage to clothing and articles, attendant charges, extra nourishment and other inevitable expenses. The loss of amenities of life, the physical deformity due to loss of teeth, the disablement from leading normal life for the period of hospitalization until recovery are also causes for awarding damages under the respective heads. The reasonable and just compensation under all such counts would also have undoubtedly exceeded the lump sum compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded cannot be considered to have led to any unjust enrichment of the claimant and the rate of interest is also not shown to be higher than the then prevailing bank rate of interest. Costs followed the event and the award, therefore, has to be confirmed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 23-03-2011 Ksn