HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA C.M.A. No. 1794 of 2003 DATED:09.12.2010 Between: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant And 1. B. Sivaiah 2. B. Thulasamma 3. Miss Adithi Mammen .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, which is the appellant herein, has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal assailing the order dated 02.09.2002 made in M.V.O.P. No. 122 of 2001 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Cuddapah, whereby the petitioners-claimants were awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization, against their claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in M.V.O.P. No. 122 of 2001. The facts of the case in brief are that on 14.03.2000 at about 06.00 A.M., when B.Ramadevi-deceased, along with her younger brother was present in front of their house, a lorry bearing No.TN01 K 2974 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from Koduru side towards Rajampet at high speed and hit the deceased and the front right side tyre of the lorry ran over her, as a result, she suffered crush and multiple injuries. She was admitted to Government hospital, Rajampet, and on the same day, she was referred to S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupati as her condition was serious. She underwent several operations including skin grafting between 14.03.2000 and 24.09.2000 (six months ten days). However, she could not survive and died on 24.09.2000 at 11:30 p.m. in the hospital itself. During the period of her treatment, she suffered both physically and mentally. More than Rs.70,000/- was spent towards her treatment. She was aged about 10 years by the date of the accident. She was helping the claimants in the household chores, but the claimants have lost the love and affection of their daughter. The 1st respondent – owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent-Insurance company filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the claim petition including the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry and alleged that the deceased was negligent in crossing the road without observing the vehicular traffic and the driver of the lorry was having a valid driving licence, thereby the 1st respondent violated the conditions of the policy. It is further stated that the deceased was a minor girl and she was not an earning member, as such, the 2nd respondent is neither liable to indemnify the 1st respondent nor liable to pay any compensation. Based on the pleadings of both the parties, the Tribunal framed relevant issues as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing No.TN01 K 2974, entitlement of the petitioners claiming compensation and the liability of the respondents to pay the same. The 1st petitioner, who is the father of the deceased got himself examined as PW1 and got Exs.A1 to A5 marked, however no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PW1 and other material brought on record, answered the first issue that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry and granted compensation in favour of the petitioners as stated supra by fastening joint and several liability on the respondents. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has applied the multiplier method for awarding compensation, as such, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection and Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses, that too, in the face of non-filing of any medical bills. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents-claimants that there is nothing in law prohibiting granting of compensation towards loss of love and affection and medical expenditure specifically even without the application of multiplier method, and in the absence of medical bills. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record, this Court finds no reason to disagree with the impugned order in awarding Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses even in the absence of production of medical bills since the material on record reveals that the minor injured girl was taken to S.V.R.R. hospital at Tirupathi for better treatment and she underwent treatment in the hospital between 14.03.2000 and 24.09.2000 i.e. six months ten days and also underwent several operations including skin grafting, etc., and thereafter, breathed her last. Therefore, her parents must have spent huge amount towards the treatment. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity and the same is not liable to be interfered with. In the result, this appeal is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J 9th December, 2010 bcj