IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2449 of 2003 Between: Yelamanchili Radha Rani .... Appellant AND B. Raju & others. .... Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Sri A. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri V. Srinivasa Rao The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2449 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of award dated 29.04.2003 in MVOP.No.816 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Court, Warangal (for short, “the Tribunal”). The claimant – appellant, while traveling in Jeep bearing registration No.MH 34 6163 towards Narsampet, received injuries, as the jeep has turned turtle near Girnibai village. Respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the vehicle. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. As against the claim of Rs.75,000/-, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed under the award, the claimant filed the present appeal. At the hearing, Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in not considering the heads of medical bills, loss of income, extra nourishment and pain and suffering. A perusal of the award shows that the Tribunal has not discussed the abovementioned heads while awarding compensation. In support of her claim, the claimant apart from examining herself as PW.1, examined the Doctor, who treated her, as PW.2. PW.2 has categorically deposed in his evidence that he is an Orthopedic Surgeon at MGM Hospital, Warangal and that the claimant has sustained the following injuries. “1. Fracture of the left pelvic ramir at symphesis . 2. Fracture of the alve of sacrum at right sactro iliac joint.” He has also deposed that the appellant was advised bed rest for two months. PW.2 has referred to Ex.A5, prescriptions also. Except putting a suggestion to PW.2 that the injuries were not grievous in nature, respondent No.3, insurance company, has not elicited anything to discredit the testimony of PW.2. No suggestion was put to the appellant, who is examined as PW.1, that the bunch of medical bills, marked as Ex.A4, are not genuine. Therefore, I do not find any rationale behind the Tribunal in not awarding the costs of the medicines under a separate head. In a case of injuries, the injured is entitled to compensation towards reimbursement of the medical expenses, loss of income, extra-nourishment and pain and suffering. As noted above, except awarding a lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/-, the Tribunal has not discussed each of these heads. In my opinion, as the appellant suffered two fractures, it would be reasonable to award Rs.5,000/- for each of the fractures. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that in all his client has spent about Rs.10,000/- towards medicines, as evident from Ex.A4 medical bills. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to this amount. Apart from the above heads, the appellant is also entitled to loss of income, extra nourishment and pain and suffering. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find it appropriate to award in all a total sum of Rs.40,000/- towards compensation. The award of the Tribunal is accordingly modified. The appellant is entitled to payment of interest @ 6% per annum on the additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- from the date of petition till the date of realization. Subject to the above, the appeal is partly allowed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.09.2010 ES