IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHR PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V AFZULPURKAR FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.564 of 2001 Between: Arum Ram …Petitioner / Appellant AND M.Subba Reddy And another …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.564 of 2001 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is ﬁled by the claimant, who suﬀered injuries in a motor accident while travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.AIS 8610. On the date of accident i.e. 06.11.1996, the oﬀending lorry bearing registration No.ADD 2692 came in high speed and dashed from behind against the vehicle on which, the appellant was travelling. The appellant suﬀered serious injuries, which required prolonged hospitalization. He has undergone as many as six surgeries at NIMS, Hyderabad and was in-patient for about ﬁve months. He, therefore, ﬁled O.P.No.723 on the ﬁle of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity) claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The Tribunal, by its order dated 29.09.2000, restricted the compensation to Rs.1,72,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal. 2. It is alleged in the claim petition that he is a native of Trivendrum, Kerala, and on account of his accident, his parents and relatives have to come down to Hyderabad, take on rent a ﬂat paying Rs.15,000/- for ﬁve months, apart from the claimant and his parents spending huge amounts towards transportation, attendance, etc., The said claim petition was contested by the respondents. In the light of the evidence on behalf of the claimants, namely, P.W.1 – the claimant and P.W.2 – the Doctor who certiﬁed disability of the claimant at 20%, and also in the light of Exs.A.1 to A.9 marked on their behalf, the Tribunal below found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the oﬀending vehicle and the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. To the extent of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal found that as per Ex.A.9 – agreement between the appellant and his employer, the claimant’s salary was Rs.2,600/- per month. The Tribunal assessed the disability of the claimant as 20% and awarded a sum of Rs.1,12,000/- on this account. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards medical reimbursement in the light Ex.A.5 – medical bills, Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of comforts. A sum of Rs.15,000/- was further awarded by the Tribunal towards attendance and incidental charges and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges. Thus, an aggregate amount of Rs.1,72,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal as compensation. The present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned standing counsel for the second respondent – Insurance Company. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has not taken the gross salary of the appellant into consideration and thereby, assessment of quantum of compensation is reduced. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that Ex.A.9 is an agreement between the claimant and his employer and following the same, assessment of compensation was made by the Tribunal by taking into consideration the salary of the claimant at Rs.2,600/- per month which was mentioned therein, and the said order of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. 5. I have considered the aforesaid rival contentions. It is no doubt true that Ex.A.9 is agreement between the claimant and his employer wherein, apart from salary of Rs.2,600/- per month, the employer has agreed that the claimant would be paid Rs.2,000/- per month towards conveyance reimbursement, Rs.220/- towards telephone allowance, Rs.300/- towards news gathering expenses, Rs.750/- per month towards newspaper allowance, Rs.1,200/- towards house rent allowance, Rs.2,600/- per annum towards LTC assistance and Rs.2,600/- per annum towards medical reimbursement. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that these amounts ought to have taken into consideration by the Tribunal while assessing the salary of the claimant. However, it is to be noted that all these other amounts are payable as reimbursement. The said allowances, therefore, presuppose that appellant would incur these amounts and he will be reimbursed the said expenses by his employer. It is not as if the appellant draws gross salary inclusive of all these amounts. The salary certiﬁcate is conspicuously not found in the record and based on Ex.A.9 agreement, the tribunal had no other option, but to assess the monthly salary of the appellant as Rs.2,600/- as shown therein. In the absence of Salary Certiﬁcate of the claimant, the said assessment of the Tribunal, therefore, is justiﬁed. The Tribunal, accordingly, has arrived at loss of income by taking into consideration 20% disability, based upon the evidence of P.W.2. The amount of Rs.1,12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards this head, therefore, needs no interference. 6. Similarly, to the extent of medical bills ﬁled under Ex.A.5, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, no other medical bills or prescriptions are ﬁled showing the prolonged treatment taken by the claimant. However, the fact that he underwent six surgeries and was in-patient for five months at NIMS Hospital is not disputed. Thus, six surgeries and medical treatment not only for those ﬁve months but also for the period thereafter, would certainly involve huge expenditure. Though there are no medical bills other than Ex.A.5, it cannot be lost sight of that the claimant would have incurred substantial medical expenditure. Therefore, to my mind, a further sum of Rs.50,000/- to cover medical reimbursement towards medicines and extra nourishment, both during the period of treatment and for the period thereafter, would be just and appropriate to be awarded, in addition to Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 7. To the extent of pain and suﬀering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-. This head also requires proper enhancement, inasmuch as the appellant has undergone six surgeries. Even with regard to one surgery, a sum of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded for pain and suﬀering. Since the same is incurred by the appellant on six occasions, I deem it just and proper to award an aggregate amount of Rs.75,000/- towards pain and suﬀering. As the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.15,000/- towards this head, the appellant is entitled for enhancement of Rs.60,000/- on this account. The rest of the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, however, needs no interference by this Court, as the same as rightly awarded. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed in part. 8. Accordingly, the award in O.P.No.723 of 1997 dated 29.09.2000 on the ﬁle of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, shall stand enhanced by a further sum of Rs.1,10,000/-, as indicated in the two heads above. The said enhancement shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 9. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ VILAS V AFZULPURKAR, J February 19, 2010 Bvv