IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.742 of 2005 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited, Warangal .. Appellant AND Abdul Raheem and 2 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.414 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, dated 28-11-2003. The 1st respondent herein and his friend were going on a scooter on 06-09-2002 and near Peddapalli Chowrastha, Karkhanagadda, Karimnagar at about 7.00 P.M., jeep No.ADJ- 4329, driven rashly and negligently at high speed, dashed against the scooter. The 1st respondent herein, the pillion rider, sustained injuries to his right hand and fore head and the Traffic Police, Karimnagar registered Crime No.127 of 2002 against the driver of the jeep. In spite of treatment at Government Hospital, Karimnagar, NIMS, Hyderabad and Udaya Clinic, Hyderabad, the claimant could not recover and had to undergo number of surgeries in the meanwhile. The claimant was unable to sit or stand or walk properly and had to engage an attendant at Rs.2,000/- per month. He incurred an expense of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medicines and treatment and incidental expenses and his avocation of running medical stores earning Rs.10,000/- per month was adversely effected. He was an income tax assessee and claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the jeep. The driver and the owner of the jeep denied the accident or any rashness or negligence in driving by the driver or the claimant sustaining any injuries. In any view, the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner of any liability to pay compensation. The insurer contested the claim denying the accident and attributing negligence to the scooter driver. The claimant sustained only simple injuries and the jeep driver had no valid driving licence. The jeep was not insured and hence, the insurer denied any liability. The Tribunal framed issues about the manner of the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.19 and B.1 during the course of enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting Ex.A.1-First Information Report, Ex.A.5-Charge sheet and the evidence of PW.1 to conclude that the rash and negligent driving of the jeep led to the accident. In assessing the compensation payable, the Tribunal referred in detail to the evidence of PW.1, the injured, corroborated by the doctor, PW.2. The Tribunal felt that the 1st respondent herein suffered a wound near the right ankle, two punctured wounds on the right leg and compound segmental fracture of both bones of right leg for which he underwent five surgeries in NIMS, Hyderabad, even after which he was left with shortening of 1 cm of right leg with a disability of 15%. Consequently, the Tribunal felt it just to award Rs.70,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards disability, Rs.1,70,000/- towards medicines, Rs.40,000/- towards transport, Rs.20,000/- towards future surgery and Rs.50,000/- towards future attendant charges, making a total of Rs.4,00,000/- on which interest was directed to be paid at 9% p.a. The insurer was aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and having taken the permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenged the damages awarded under different heads without any evidence. Smt. I. Maamuvani, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, are heard and respondents 2 and 3 remained unrepresented before this Court as they were stated to be not necessary parties. The insurer did not question the finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident being with the jeep driver and respondents 1 to 3 to the claim being the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle is not disputed. The joint and several liability of the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the injured for the consequences he suffered due to the accident cannot be in doubt. Therefore, it is only the quantum of such compensation that is in question herein. Insofar as the amounts awarded towards medicines and transport together coming to Rs.2,10,000/- are concerned, a perusal of Ex.A.6-medical prescriptions, Ex.A.7-bills, Ex.A.9-final bill of NIMS, Exs.A.11 and A.12-bills of Udaya Clinic and Ex.A.14- final bill of NIMS apart from the travel bills under Ex.A.15 would show that without duplicating the different claims made and excluding the amounts stated again in the Essentiality certificates, the total expenditure appears to come to around Rs.2,14,000/-. The claimant had in fact stated as PW.1 that he incurred an expense of Rs.2,25,000/- in total towards treatment, medicines and transport. In the claim petition, the claimants had claimed only Rs.15,000/- towards transport and Rs.2,00,000/- towards medicines and extra nourishment and therefore, he cannot lay any claim for any higher sum than what was awarded by the Tribunal and in the absence of any duplication of the amount awarded as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant very forcefully, there is no need to interfere with such sum of Rs.2,10,000/-. Rs.70,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- towards disability were awarded in lump sum by the Tribunal without any calculation on any accepted principles, but still the fact remains that the compound segmental fracture of both bones of right leg and the other wounds inflicted on the right leg resulted in such a tortous treatment to be undergone by PW.1 in different spells at NIMS and Udaya Clinic, apart from the initial treatment taken at the Government Hospital at Karimnagar and also the compulsion to undergo five surgeries in the meanwhile. In spite of the same, he was left with shortening of the right leg by 1 cm and 15% disability in its functioning. The consequential effect on the earning capacity of the claimant could not have been totally erased or ignored and though not guided by any mathematical calculation, the amounts awarded towards pain and suffering and disability also need not be disturbed in view of the gravity of the injuries, the length of the treatment and the permanent functional disability. However, the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs.20,000/- towards future surgery based on the evidence of PW.2-the doctor, Associate Professor, but the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 made no reference to any need for any further surgery and no material is placed before this Court that the claimant underwent any treatment since then till now. The said amount, therefore, should be disallowed. The evidence of PW.2 of course stated about the need for the claimant having to employ an attendant for assistance. PW.3 tried to corroborate that he was employed as such attendant. It is easy to procure and difficult to deny such evidence and mere shortening of right leg by 1 cm disabling the functional capability of that limb would not have normally required the continuous assistance by an attendant being indispensable for the day to day life of the claimant or for pursuing his avocation. Assuming that he engaged an attendant at that time during the period of treatment and hospitalization or even during the further period of being required to take bed rest as spoken to by PW.2, the amount awarded towards attendant charges should have been reasonably restricted to Rs.20,000/-. Rs.30,000/- seems to be granted in excess under this head by the Tribunal. Therefore, the total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal needs to be reduced by Rs.50,000/-, while the other amounts granted under other heads of damages needs no interference or the interest awarded at 9% p.a., which is not shown to be deviant from the then prevailing rate of interest adopted by the Scheduled Banks. Therefore, the award dated 28-11-2003 in O.P.No.414 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, is modified by reducing the compensation by Rs.50,000/- and otherwise confirming the same in all other respects. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 23-09-2011 Ksn