HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A. No. 335 of 2005 DATED: 07.09.2010 Between: Ramesh Kumar Appellant/Ptr. And 1. P. Nazeer Ahmed Khan 2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Respondents JUDGMENT: This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 22.09.2004 made in O.P. No. 110 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad, whereby an amount of Rs.20,000/- was awarded to the appellant-claimant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation against his claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. The brief set of events that led to the present proceedings are that on 23.10.2001, at about 08:30 P.M., while the claimant and others were travelling in an Ambassador Car No. AP28 5246 from Kisan Nagar to Dichpally and when they reached near Mentrajpally village, one lorry bearing No. AP 04 T 3524, driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction and dashed against the Ambassador Car, and turned turtle, as a result, the claimant and others sustained multiple and grievous injuries. Hence, the claimant filed O.P. No. 110 of 2002 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed written statement inter alia denying all the allegations made in the O.P. and stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Ambassador car in which the appellant-petitioner was travelling and the compensation claimed is excessive. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. AP04 T 3524 by its driver? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what just amount and from which of the respondents? (iii) To what relief? To substantiate the claim of the petitioner-claimant, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.14 were got marked on his behalf. Nobody was examined except marking of Ex.B1 on behalf of the respondents. Taking into consideration the evidence and other material on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.20,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant-injured preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fracture injury suffered by the appellant and ought to have believed the medical evidence of PW2, who treated the appellant for the injury sustained by him in the accident and who issued Ex.A6 – disability certificate. According to Ex.A6, the appellant suffered 50% disability. He has also submitted that even as per Ex.A5 – certified copy of injury certificate, the appellant had suffered two grievous and two simple injuries and spent huge amounts towards treatment. Therefore, the learned counsel has contended that the total amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is very low and the same may be appropriately enhanced. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal was justified in brushing aside the medical evidence of PW2 since PW2 did not treat the appellant-claimant for the injuries sustained by him, but only examined the appellant on 02.06.2003 and issued Ex.A6 – disability certificate and Ex.A8 - discharge summary issued by Amrutha Laxmi Hospital. He further pointed out to the observation made by the Tribunal that the injured-petitioner failed to get himself examined by the Doctor of Government Hospital, who initially treated him for the injury suffered by him in the accident, and that he also failed to obtain disability certificate from that Doctor. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that the Tribunal was justified in brushing aside the medical evidence, as such, the impugned order needs no interference. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. From a careful perusal of the impugned order and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, it is obvious that even though there is controversy with regard to the factum of treatment given by PW2, the same was not the basis for the Tribunal for awarding compensation, but compensation was awarded in view of the fact that the appellant-claimant sustained two grievous injuries and two simple injuries which are evident from Ex.A5 – Report given by the Government Medical Officer after examination of the claimant. Following are the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant: i) A fracture of right clavicle ii) 7.3 cms lacerated wound over right ear with cut ear cartilage iii) simple injury in the form of laceration over the lip on the right side measuring 3x2 cms iv) simple injury in the form of swelling and tenderness over the mandible. However, it is to be noticed from the impugned order that in spite of the fact that the petitioner has specifically claimed compensation under certain heads i.e. towards pain and suffering, transportation charges, medical expenses and maintenance, the Tribunal failed to award any amount under those heads. Therefore, having regard to Ex.A5 – certified copy of injury certificate, Ex.A6 – partial permanent disability certificate issued by PW2 - Dr. T.Narsing Rao and Ex.A8 – Discharge summary issued by Amrutha Laxmi Hospital, Nizamabad, this Court is of the view that the plea raised on behalf of the appellant that the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is very low, is sustainable and the compensation amount requires to be modified in the interest of justice since no amount was awarded to certain heads as already been pointed out hereinabove. Therefore, taking into consideration the documents i.e. Exs.A5, A6 and A8 and the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is inclined to grant a total compensation amount of Rs.75,000/- to the appellant (Rs.20,000/- towards each grievous injury, Rs.10,000/- towards each simple injury, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards maintenance), and the same would meet the ends of justice. However, considering the decision reported in SARALA VARMA & OTHERS V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANOTHER[1] case and other decisions of the Apex Court, it is thought appropriate to reduce the rate of interest at the rate of 9% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal to 7.5%, and the same is hereby reduced on the enhanced compensation i.e. Rs.55,000/- With the above modification of the impugned order, this appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J 07-09-2010 bcj [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121