IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.723 OF 2005 Between: Burra Laxmi ..... Appellant And 1. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its General Manager, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, & another …Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.723 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.54 of 2004, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, dated 11.11.2004. 2. The factual background for the appeal is that the claimant/appellant was returning from Medaram to Huzurabad by A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus No.AP 11Z 232 on 01.03.2002. The bus driver lost control over the bus due to his rash and negligent driving and dashed against a road side tree, resulting in compound fractures to the appellant at the shaft of left femur and left clavicle. She was an inpatient in MGM Hospital, Warangal, for three days and at Sudha Nursing Home, Karimnagar, for two days and at Orthocare Hospital for 15 days. She underwent surgery on 06.03.2002 with insertion of a steel rod in the right leg and even after discharge on 15.03.2002, she was advised bed rest for six months. The appellant claimed that she incurred an expenditure of RS.50,000/- towards medicines, Rs.10,000/- towards special diet, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and Rs.3,000/- towards attendant charges. She claimed to have sustained a permanent disability being unable to continue her earlier occupation as a labourer in Agriculture and Construction earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence, she claimed a compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-. 3. The A.P.S.R.T.C. sued in the name of two of its officers as respondents 1 and 2 resisted the claim contending that its driver was not negligent and that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation. 4. During enquiry, the Tribunal examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent corporation. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award deciding the two issues framed by it about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation. On the first issue, the Tribunal accepted the evidence of the injured P.W.1, corroborated by the contents of the First Information Report and the Charge sheet, Exs.A-1 and A-2. After finding the driver of the bus to be responsible, the Tribunal, in assessing the compensation payable, referred to the evidence of injured P.W.1 and the Orthopaedic Surgeon, P.W.2, and awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. With reference to Ex.A-7-Medical bills and the evidence of P.W.2 about the expenditure for removal of the implants, the Tribunal granted Rs.8,412/- towards the medical bills Ex.A-7 and Rs.8,000/- towards surgery and expenditure for removal of implants. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,000/- per month and Rs.3,000/- in total towards loss of services of P.W.1 to the family and the total compensation of Rs.44,412/- was rounded off to Rs.45,000/-. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs on the said sum. 6. The claimant was aggrieved by the said award and filed the present appeal contending that the appellant, who was subjected to compound fractures at the shaft of left femur and left clavicle, was an inpatient for three months in MGM Hospital, Warangal, and then underwent treatment further, requiring bed rest even after discharge from the private hospital. Ex.A-5- Disability Certificate issued by the Government Medical Board certifying 40% permanent partial disability could not have been ignored and the income of the injured should not have been assessed only at Rs.1,000/- per month. The discomfort, inconvenience and hardship and the permanent consequences which the injured suffered were not appropriately taken into account apart from not granting any amounts towards transport, extra nourishment, etc. The documents Exs.A-3 to A-7 were ignored and hence, the claimant desired the impugned award to be reversed. 7. Sri Vemuganti Ramachander Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation are heard. 8. Insofar as the finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the bus driver for the accident is concerned, the same was not challenged by any party and the said finding having become final, the liability of the respondent corporation to justly and adequately compensate the appellant for the injuries and their consequences is not in doubt. 9. The only question that remains for consideration is what is the just and adequate compensation to which the claimant is entitled? 10. Ex.A-6-discharge sheet and the evidence of P.W.2 show that the appellant suffered two fractures, the first at the shaft of left femur and the second at left clavicle and the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering in respect of these two fractures which were alone the injuries claimed even by the appellant as P.W.1. The entire amount covered by Ex.A-7-medical bills to a tune of Rs.8,412/- was also ordered to be reimbursed by the Tribunal. The evidence of P.W.2 about the further expenditure of about Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- towards further surgery and Rs.500/- towards medicines thereafter was taken into account by the Tribunal in awarding Rs.8,000/- towards the same. But the Tribunal did not award any sum concerning the first surgery undergone by the injured claimant on 06.03.2002 according to the evidence of P.W.2. The Tribunal also awarded only Rs.1,000/- per month or Rs.3,000/- in total towards the loss of services of the injured to the family, while even the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer during that period under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, are at about the scale of Rs.1,800/- per month which can be taken judicial notice of. 11. The petitioner/appellant as P.W.1 claimed about being confined in MGM Hospital, Warangal, as inpatient for three months and thereafter undergoing further treatment till 15.03.2002 with further advice for bed rest for six months. She claimed to have developed a permanent disability due to limping and to be not able to work as usual, but her evidence itself disclosed that she was not totally disabled from working due to any disability suffered in the accident. The evidence of P.W.2 about the treatment he had given to P.w.1 did not specifically suggest the suffering of any such disability by P.W.1 as would totally disable her from pursuing her earlier avocation after the treatment. Ex.A- 3-Medical Certificate also refers to the two fractures being subjected to surgery on 06.03.2002 and Ex.A-4-Medical Bills issued by the hospital of P.W.2 were to a tune of Rs.15,000/-. P.W.2 stated about his hospital issuing the said bill for the expenses of surgery and the other expenses specified in the bill. Ex.A-5 disability certificate obtained by P.W.1 on 02.10.2004 was 2 ½ years after the accident and certifies that P.W.1 suffered 40% permanent partial disability due to mal-united fractures and difficulty in squatting and stiffness in the left knee. However, no person connected with the issuance of Ex.A-5 had been examined on behalf of the injured. 12. On such material, it is thus seen that though pain and suffering, medical expenses under Ex.A-7 and probable expenses for the further surgery were adequately compensated by the Tribunal, the Tribunal for unexplained reasons did not consider grant of the actual expenses incurred by P.W.1 towards the earlier surgery and treatment with P.W.2 at least to the extent of Ex.A-4-bill, spoken to by P.W.2 also as having been issued by his hospital. The said sum of Rs.15,000/- covered by Ex.A-4 should have to be reimbursed to the claimant. Insofar as the loss of services of P.W.1 to the family are concerned, even if the period of three months assessed towards the same by the Tribunal were to be considered as reasonable, the monetary value of loss of services has to be connected at least to the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer at about his relevant time and therefore, a sum of at least Rs.5,400/- should have been awarded under that head and the difference of Rs.2,400/- should, therefore, be now enhanced. 13. Insofar as the disability is concerned, it is true that no person connected with the issuance of Ex.A-5 had been examined and the learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation rightly relied on RAJESH KUMAR ALIAS RAJU VS. YUDHVIR SING AND ANOTHER[1], wherein the Apex Court held that unless the author of the certificate is examined, such certificate would not be admissible in evidence. However, it is seen from the factual background of that case that the competence of person issuing the certificate was not known and with reference to what provisions the disability was calculated was also not available. In the present case, the disability certificate was issued by the authorized medical board of the State Government which is empowered to issue a medical certificate in respect of persons with the disabilities or Orthopaedically handicapped. It is also seen from the facts of that case that none of the contentions relating to the certificate were raised before the Tribunal or the High Court and the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded on the materials brought on record by the parties due to which the Apex Court refused to entertain any contentions in this regard. That apart, it is seen in the present case from the evidence on record that the counter of the respondent corporation in the matter only put the claimant to strict proof of her allegations about the injuries suffered by her, treatment she had taken and the consequences of the injuries. The claimant stated on oath as P.W.1 about Ex.A-5-Disability Certificate among other things obtained by her and the mere suggestion during cross-examination that Ex.A-5-Disability Certificate is not true and that she did not suffer any permanent disability cannot be equated to such evidence being contradicted by any contrary evidence. The respondent corporation did not produce any contrary evidence and, therefore, the very nature of the injuries sustained by P.W.1 as spoken to by P.W.2 clearly probablises that the claimant will be suffering for the rest of her life some discomfort and disability in respect of carrying on her earlier avocation due to the consequences of the injuries suffered by her. The difficulty in squatting and stiffness of left knee with reference to the limb can be assessed to result at least in 10% of functional disability in respect of the whole body vis-à-vis, the claimant’s occupation and, therefore, the loss of future earning capacity or earnings can be assessed at that scale. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the petitioner at 50 years is 11 and if so, the loss of future earning capacity or earnings can be calculated at about Rs.26,000/- approximately. If so, the total additional compensation payable under these heads may come to about Rs.43,400/- and taking into account the other inevitable expenses like transport, attendant’s charges, extra nourishment, etc., such enhancement of compensation can be rounded off to another Rs.45,000/-. 14. While the injured claimant is, thus, entitled to enhancement of compensation on the admitted facts and on the evidence on record to a tune of Rs.45,000/-, the interest payable on the enhanced portion of the compensation will have to be limited to 6% in view of the length of time for which interest has to be awarded. Proportionate costs on the said sum of course, shall follow suit. 15. Therefore, the award, dated 11.11.2004, in M.V.O.P.No.54 of 2004, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, is modified by enhancing the compensation by a further sum of Rs.45,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award. 16. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, accordingly, in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 7th December, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.723 OF 2005 December 7, 2010. KL [1] (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 305