IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1362 of 2002 Between: Bommireddipalli Bhaskara Venkata Ramana Murthy .. Appellant AND B.A.V. Lakshminarayana and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award dated 16-01-2002 in M.O.P.No.1872 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The factual background for the appeal is that the claimant was travelling as pillion rider on scooter No.AP-31 H 1109 on 13-07-1999 and near Singh Hotel Junction at Visakhapatnam, Car No.AP-31 E 8228, driven by the 1st respondent rashly and negligently without blowing horn and without headlights, hit the scooter and dragged the same for a distance. The claimant suffered fracture of his right leg and other grievous injuries and a case in Crime No.61 of 1999 was registered. The claimant was treated in C.D.R. Hospitals, Visakhapatnam, and was operated on the right leg for correction of the fractures. He also underwent skin grafting and bone grafting and still the bone structure is not yet corrected. The recovery may take more than 6 to 8 months and the claimant lost one academic year. Therefore, he claimed a compensation of Rs.3,73,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the car. The 2nd respondent-owner of the car died and the 1st respondent- driver contested the claim contending that the scooter was being driven rashly and negligently in spite of the 1st respondent blowing horn and applying sudden brakes. The scooter hit the car and hence, the driver, owner and insurer of the scooter are necessary parties. The claims of the claimant were otherwise denied and the claim was not maintainable. The 3rd respondent-insurer also denied the allegations of the claimant and attributed rashness and negligence to the scooter driver. The existence of subsisting valid insurance and valid driving licence for the driver also have to be proved and the compensation claimed is excessive. On such pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation from the respondents and examined PWs 1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 and Ex.B.1 during the course of enquiry. The Tribunal concluded on the basis of uncontroverted evidence of PW.1, the injured, corroborated by Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.9-Judgment that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the car driver. The Tribunal consequently concluded the respondents 1 to 3 to be jointly and severally liable to compensate the claimant. The Tribunal opined that the claimant losing the academic year does not arise, as the accident occurred in July 1999, after the EAMCET examination and awarded Rs.1,500/- towards transport, Rs.1500/- towards damages to the clothing, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- towards future medical expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards temporary disability. It rejected the other claims and granted a compensation of Rs.63,000/- in total with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs. The claimant filed the present appeal contending that he could not attend the counselling for admission into Engineering Course due to the accident and lost one academic year. He was hospitalized for six weeks and was confined to bed for 8 months and was undergoing series of operations and also skin grafting and bone grafting. A permanent disability was still left and the entire compensation as claimed should have been awarded. Heard Smt. M. Umadevi, learned counsel, representing G. Ram Gopal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent, who has been requested by the Court to assist. The conclusions of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the car driver being the cause for the accident and the joint and several liability of respondents 1 to 3 to justly and adequately compensate the claimant for the injuries and their consequences are not challenged by any party and they have become final. Therefore, the only question that remains for consideration is the quantum of compensation to which the claimant is entitled. The respondents to the claim petition including the insurer did not challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,500/- towards transport to the hospital and another Rs.1,500/- towards damages to the clothing as claimed by the claimant and the claimant could not have asked for more in the appeal. In respect of the claim for Rs.20,000/- towards extra nourishment etc., the Tribunal took into account the medical bills to a tune of Rs.7,500/- and odd and awarded Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and medical expenses. The claimant has now produced in the appeal Ex.A.11 bill issued by CDR hospital, Visakhapatnam at the time of his discharge charging the appellant with a sum of Rs.60,820/- in total towards room rent, pharamacy, investigations and other charges. The claimant claims to have paid the same and in view of the proof afforded by Ex.A.11, the entire sum of Rs.60,820/- has to be reimbursed to the claimant. Therefore, enhancing the compensation by about Rs.53,500/- under this head will be reasonable and just. Insofar as the compensation for pain and suffering awarded at Rs.10,000/- is concerned, the same is but reasonable and there was no proof of any permanent disability or continuing disability. The compensation for loss of earning power was also denied by the Tribunal, as the claimant was only a student, but the Tribunal considered it just to award Rs.15,000/- towards surgeries, which the claimant has to undergo for removal of the plates inserted by the earlier surgeries. It also awarded Rs.25,000/- towards the temporary disability, which the claimant suffered. These sums cannot be interfered with. However, the Tribunal did not award any compensation towards loss of one academic year. The claimant as PW.1 specifically deposed about his being confined to bed for eight (8) months and his being compelled to walk only with the help of a walker for six (6) months. He stated that he could not attend the counselling in that academic year, though he got 8797 rank in EAMCET and consequently, he lost that academic year, though subsequently he joined Mechanical Engineering Course in Gayatri College. While the claim is for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of academic year, keeping in view that he was able to get back his desired Engineering Course the very next year, grant of compensation of Rs.20,000/- under that head may be just and reasonable, in assessing which, of course, an element of guess and estimate became inevitable. Thus, taking an overall view, compensation appears to be enhanceable under two heads of medical expenses and loss of academic year to a tune of about Rs.73,000/- and odd. Therefore, rounding off the enhancement of the compensation to Rs.75,000/- will be granting just and adequate compensation to the claimant. Taking into account, the long period, for which the respondents have to pay interest on the enhanced portion of compensation, such interest can be confined to 6% per annum and of course proportionate costs on the enhanced portion of the compensation also are liable to be paid by the respondents. No directions need be given at this distance of time concerning the disbursement of the compensation. Therefore, a further compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs is awarded in addition to the compensation already awarded, by the impugned award dated 16.01.2002 in M.O.P.No.1872 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum- I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and the appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE DOCUMENTS MARKED Ex.A.11/20.08.1999: Bill issued by the C.D.R.Hospitals, Visakhapatnam marked as additional evidence as per orders in CMA MP.No.4344 of 2010 dated 26.10.2010. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:26th October, 2010. Ksn/PNV HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1362 of 2002 Dt.26.10.2010