IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A.No.2971 of 2003 DATE:19.11.2010 Between: V.Narasimha …… Appellant And Sk.Mohiuddin and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A.No.2971 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The injured claimant dissatisfied with award of compensation of Rs.6,000/- by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.1369 of 2000 filed this appeal. The lower Tribunal held on facts that the petitioner was involved in road accident on 02.06.2000 at about 13:30 hours when auto bearing No.AP 24 T 9960 hit him while he was crossing road and caused injuries to him. The lower Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,000/- for the injuries; Rs.2,000/- for pain and suffering, extra nourishment and transportation together; Rs.1,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards loss of earnings, totalling Rs.6,000/-. The lower Tribunal simply referred to Ex.A-2 discharge summary in order to find injuries sustained by the injured. The lower Tribunal totally failed to notice that evidence of the doctor was let in by the injured by way of P.W-2 on commission. Unfortunately appendix of evidence appended to the order of the lower Tribunal also does not read that doctor was examined as P.W- 2. The appellant’s counsel while enclosing copy of doctor’s evidence along with the material papers, also filed certified copy of evidence of doctor along with proceedings of the Commissioner enclosing such evidence. 2) P.W-2 is professor of Surgery, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. It is his evidence that the injured was admitted in his unit on 02.06.2000 at 10.00 P.M with abdomen injury and he was operated after resuscitating at 2.00 A.M on 03.06.2000. He certified the following injuries on the injured. 1) Spleen was lacerated 2) Left lobe of the liver was injured 3) There was retro-peritoneal haematoma i.e., collection of blood in the posterial abdomen walls. He also certified the following procedures done by him during the surgical operation: 1) Spleenactomey i.e., spleen was removed. 2) Left lobe of the liver was resuscitated i.e., part of liver removed. 3) Other injuries were repaired. He says that the patient developed some complications in the post operative period and they were taken care of and was discharged on 26.06.2000. Ex.A-2 is discharge summary issued by P.W-2’s unit. 2) Thus, this is not a case where the injured received simple injuries. Having regard to nature of injuries sustained by the injured and procedures underwent by him during surgical operation, it would be ridiculous to award paltry sum of Rs.6,000/- towards compensation. Having regard to the procedures spoken to by P.W-2 during surgical operation on the injured, no other evidence is required to show about the future difficulties that the injured would face in his life. Spleen of the injured was totally removed. Left lobe of the liver was partly removed. P.W-2 says that function of the spleen is immunity and that since the patient is aged 20 years, immunology problems are not major and that due to minor immunity problems, he may develop some and infrequent problems. In cross-examination, P.W-2 deposed that in Government unit there was no expenditure incurred by the patient i.e., P.W-1 and that he was treated free of cost during his hospitalisation. He says that P.W-1 becomes infectious in view of removal of his spleen and that for simple problems like cough and cold he has to incur lot of expenditure for which a normal person rarely requires any medication and that in future, for minor accidents also he has to take more medicines than a normal person. This is a case where one integral part of the body by name spleen was removed and another integral part namely liver was partly removed. The lower Tribunal did not address itself to these aspects of the matter and awarded compensation which is ridiculously low. I am of the opinion that another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is liable to be awarded to the appellant towards loss of one part of the body and loss of part of another part of the body and also the future complications which he is going to face due to immunity problems. 3) In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs awarding total compensation of Rs.1,06,000/- to the appellant from the respondents jointly and severally. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 19, 2010 ksh