IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE 20th DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A No.519 OF 2005 Between:- United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. …Appellant A n d Manakondy Srinivasulu @ Srinivas and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.519 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the common award dated 08-09-2004 in O.P.No.179 of 2001, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the claim of the first respondent/ claimant was allowed, awarding compensation of Rs.10 lakhs, as claimed, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the award. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. The first respondent herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.10 lakhs on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06-05-2000. According to him, he sustained a head injury and fracture of right femur and lacerated wound injury on the left hand, besides other injuries. He claimed that he was a contractor, earning Rs.15,000/- per month and on account of accident and resultant permanent disability to the extent of 60%, he lost his memory. He claimed to have spent huge amount of Rs.3,50,000/- for treatment. The tribunal, on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver and fastened joint and several liability on the owner of the car and also the appellant insurer. No liability is fastened on the respondents 3 and 4, the owner and insurer of the other vehicle involved in the accident. Aggrieved by the award, the insurer of the car filed the present appeal mainly questioning the quantum of compensation. The finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car, which was insured with the appellant-insurer and, therefore, the owner of the said car and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, is not disputed. 4. The only question, which arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. According to the claimant-P.W.2, he sustained fractures to right leg, left hand and also multiple injuries and underwent operation and steels rods were inserted in Newciti Hospital and then he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital. He also claimed that he received head injury on account of which he suffered loss of memory and capacity to identify. According to him, he was undergoing treatment even by the date of filing of the claim application and spent Rs.6 lakhs towards medical expenses. He also claimed that because of the injury he cannot sit properly and the permanent disability sustained by him had resulted in loss of income as contractor in telephones department. P.W.6, the orthopaedic surgeon who treated P.W.2 testified that P.W.2 was having fracture of right femur and also fracture of dislocation of left wrist with severe intra cranial injury and an operation was performed on 15-05-2000 and another operation for mandible fracture and fracture of left wrist was also done at Challa Nursing Home. It is also in his evidence that interlocutory nailing was done to femur and also mandible besides external fixation of wrist. P.W.6 further testified that there was dislocation of both hip joint due to osteolysis and P.W.2 would have difficulty in walking without support. It is also in his evidence that even by the date of his giving evidence P.W.2 was having rods and he has to undergo another operation for removal of rods and he may have to incur an expenditure of 1.5 lakhs to Rs.2 lakhs for future treatment. P.W.6 also testified that P.W.2 was having permanent disability of 60%. Ex.A-42 x-ray taken even on the eve of his giving evidence revealed that P.W.2 was still having infection. It is also in the evidence of P.W.6 that P.W.2 would have to undergo recurrent blood transfusion. Exs.A-13 and 14 the discharge bills and bunch of medical bills supported the claim of P.W.2 regarding the medical expenses incurred by him in the Newciti Hospital in a sum of Rs.1,69,631/-. P.W.7, Professor and Neuro Surgeon, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, who also treated P.W.2, testified that P.W.2 sustained head injury with suborconoid haemorrhage and cerebal edema and it was grievous in nature. According to him, there was bleeding in brain and blood transfusion was also given. The medical evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7, coupled with the medical certificates and bills, showed that P.W.2 had already incurred expenditure of about Rs.3,06,685/- for treatment and that he would have to undergo further surgery in future, incurring expenditure of 1.5 lakhs to Rs.2 lakhs. The tribunal also recorded that even for giving evidence P.W.2 had to be brought to Court in a wheel chair. Having regard to the grievous nature of multiple injuries sustained by P.W.2 requiring his hospitalization for long periods during which he underwent multiple surgeries and also the prospect of his undergoing further surgeries in future, it is considered that the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal towards medical expenses is considered just and reasonable. According to P.W.2, he was running a firm in the name of Nithin Constructions, doing contracts in telephone departments and he was also an income tax assessee and his income was Rs.1 lakh per annum and on account of the permanent disability of 60% suffered by him there is certainly loss of the said income. P.W.8, wife of P.W.2, filed Exs.A-44 to A-49 to show the solvency and income of P.W.2. Ex.A-44 is PAN card and Exs.A-45 and 46 are the copies of accounts submitted to the income tax department and Ex.A-47 is the certificate issued by telephone department and Ex.A-48 is the solvency certificate issued by the bank to the effect that since five years P.W.2 was having solvency worth Rs.20 lakhs and Ex.A-49 is the attested copy of bank statement. Based on the above documentary evidence, the tribunal has estimated the income of P.W.2 at Rs.93,824/-. It is not disputed that at the time of accident P.W.2 was aged 36 years and the appropriate multiplier is 14.40. In view of the disability certificate-Ex.A-16 showing that P.W.2 was having permanent disability of 60%, the tribunal has estimated the loss of future income on account of permanent disability of 60% at Rs.8,10,639/-, which is considered just and reasonable. Besides the above, the tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards future medical expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.40,000/- towards extra nourishment. The tribunal estimated the total compensation at Rs.10,00,639/- and restricted the same to the amount of Rs.10 lakhs, as claimed by the appellant. Having regard to the gravity of the nature of the injury sustained by the claimant resulting in permanent disability of 60% besides prolonged treatment and multiple surgeries and also requiring him to undergo further surgery in future and continued treatment and also the loss of income sustained by him on account of permanent disability, it is held that the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal in a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, as claimed, is just and reasonable. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to interfere with the award passed by the tribunal. 5. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 20th October, 2009 Lrkm.