IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2512 of 2004 Between: Baddipudi Anjireddy .. Appellant AND P. Balaji and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.1 of 1999 dated 04-08-2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ongole. The appellant claiming to be travelling in lorry No.AP-26-U- 3335 on 27-10-1997 at about 4.30 A.M. along with his vegetable baskets paying fare for the vegetable baskets as well as for himself, was injured when another lorry AHH 2523 came in the opposite direction, which was dashed against by the lorry in which the appellant was travelling, which was driven rashly and negligently. The appellant claimed to have sustained a fracture in left pelvic region and to have been treated at Government Hospital, Ongole for two months where he underwent surgery also. He claimed to have spent Rs.20,000/- towards treatment and other expenses and claimed to have suffered a permanent disability affecting his earning capacity. He, therefore, sought for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal, while the insurer put the claimant to strict proof of all his allegations and denied the lorry driver having a valid licence or the lorry having a valid permit. The insurer denied its liability to pay any compensation. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7 and X.1 and X.2 during the course of enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned judgment holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry as established by Ex.A.1-First Information Report, Ex.A.3- Charge sheet and the oral evidence of PW.1-the injured. The Tribunal referred to the evidence of PW.1-the injured and PW.2-the doctor to conclude that PW.1 suffered fracture of pubic ramus on the right side apart from three simple injuries. The Tribunal considered it appropriate to award Rs.3,000/- for three simple injuries, Rs.10,000/- for the grievous injury, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.821/- towards medical expenses proved by Ex.A.6-medical bills and Rs.1,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment. The Tribunal also found that the claimant being a traveller in the lorry, a goods vehicle, cannot make any claim against the insurer though he claimed to be travelling along with vegetable baskets by paying fare for baskets and for himself. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.19,821/- with interest at 12% p.a. and costs only against the 1st respondent-owner of the lorry. The appellant challenged the said award in this appeal contending that the entire compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- claimed ought to have been granted in the light of the documents marked and the evidence of PW.2-the doctor. The 1st respondent-owner of the lorry was stated to be not a necessary party to the appeal as he was set ex parte before the Tribunal, while the insurer alone was served with the notice of the appeal. But the grounds of appeal did not seek to raise any specific ground against the dismissal of the claim by the Tribunal against the insurer by the impugned award and if so, any enhancement of compensation could have been a matter of concern only for the owner of the lorry to whom no notice was taken and not for the insurer who entered appearance. After hearing Sri S. Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ramachandra Reddy Gadi, learned standing counsel for the insurer and after considering the impugned award and the evidence before the Tribunal, the conclusions of the Tribunal about the quantum of compensation payable also do not appear to be interferable in appeal. The fracture was not claimed either to have not healed or to have left a temporary or permanent disability or at least there is no proof of any total or partial disability left by the fracture injury. The other three injuries were simple and the doctor clearly stated that there was no disability due to the fracture and the claimant will attend to his normal work. The grant of Rs.10,000/- for the grievous injury, Rs.1,000/- each for the simple injuries and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering cannot be considered wrong under such circumstances. Grant of Rs.821/- towards medical expenses is to the extent to which bills were produced in Ex.A.6 and in the absence of any evidence of the income of PW.1, any provisional loss of earnings being compensated by Rs.1,000/- also cannot be considered unreal. The compensation or the interest awarded, hence, do not appear susceptible to any interference. Hence, the appeal has to fail and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 14-10-2011 Ksn