IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4125 of 2003 Between: Tirugudu Janaki Ramulu .. Appellant AND A.P.S.R.T.C. .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4125 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.1281 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, dated 08.07.2002. 2. The claimant in this case and Chougoni Ramulu were going on scooter No.AP 24 3023 on 17.10.2000 and in the outskirts of Korlapahad, APSRTC bus No.AP 10Z 4466, driven rashly and negligently, dashed against the scooter. The claimant claimed to have received multiple injuries for which he was treated at the local Government Hospital and then at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, even after which he was suffering a disability. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.80,000/-. 3. The corporation in its counter, while disputing the claims of the claimant, alleged that the claimant himself in a state of confusion touched the bus though the bus was going in a normal speed and in spite of the bus driver blowing horn. The corporation also stated that the claimant is put to strict proof of the injuries suffered and the treatment taken and the medical expenses incurred. The corporation alleged that the unfortunate accident occurred due to the gross negligence of both the vehicles and any compensation that may be awarded to the claimant has to be apportioned between both the vehicles. The corporation also claimed that the alleged expenses were exaggerated as the treatment was taken at Government Hospitals and, hence, the corporation desired the claim to be negatived. 4. O.P.No.1281 of 2000 and O.P.No.1276 of 2000, arising out of the same accident, were tried together and the Tribunal framed common issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation. 5. During the course of enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. 6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned common order concluding that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver as probablised by Ex.A-1-First Information Report and Ex.A-3-Confessional Panchanama of the driver against which there was no contrary evidence. The oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 was also relied on for the purpose. 7. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal noted that Ex.A-7-Discharge Summary was filed about the alleged fractures received by P.W.2 to his right leg, right waist and right hand. The Tribunal took adverse note of non-examination of the doctor, non-filing of any medical certificate or case sheet and doubted the authenticity of the discharge ticket. In the absence of any evidence that convinced the Tribunal to prove the fractures, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- under all counts as compensation with reference to Ex.A-1-First Information Report which mentioned about the fracture to the right leg above the thigh and injury to the left leg. The Tribunal also awarded interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit and proportionate costs. 8. The claimant was aggrieved by the meagre compensation which he challenged in this appeal and he contended that the loss of earnings during the period of treatment as inpatient and later was not compensated. Transport to hospital, extra nourishment and medical expenses were also not compensated and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 was not properly appreciated. Interest ought to have been granted at 24% per annum. 9. Heard Smt. Pingali Lakshmi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation. 10. The finding of the Tribunal about the accident occurring due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus driver remained unchallenged and has become final. The vicarious liability of the respondent corporation to justly and adequately compensate the injured claimant, therefore, cannot be in doubt. 11. Coming to the injuries sustained by the appellant, Ex.A-7-Discharge Summary issued by the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, showed the claimant to have probably suffered four fractures and to have been treated as an inpatient from 17.10.2000 to 11.11.2000. Ex.A-7-Discharge Summary specifically describes the investigations done, the treatment given including surgeries, the condition and advice at the time of discharge, etc. Though none connected with the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad were examined, there appears no ostensible reason to doubt the authenticity of Ex.A-7-Discharge Summary. The fact that the claimant was injured in the accident was not only stated in the earliest version in Ex.A-1-First Information Report describing about the fracture of the right thigh and rupture of the left big toe. Ex.A-3-Confessional Panchanama at the scene of offence corroborates the claim about the manner of the accident and the probability of the injured being treated at the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad in view of the severity of the injuries need not be doubted. The claimant deposed on oath before the Tribunal about receiving fractures to his right leg, right waist and right hand for which he was treated as inpatient for 25 days at the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and it was suggested during cross-examination that the claimant received only simple injuries and not that either the incident had not happened or that the claimant did not receive any injuries. When even the written statement/counter itself alleged the happening of the accident involving the claimant and only put the claimant to strict proof of the injuries and the treatment and when the claimant had come before the Tribunal to reiterate his claim on oath which was not subjected to any specific cross-examination on those aspects, Ex.A-7-Discharge Sumamry need not have been thrown out in the manner in which it was thrown out by the Tribunal. The non- examination of the doctor or any other person would not have been fatal in the absence of any specific denial by the respondent corporation and the very pleadings may suggest an implied admission of those aspects. Therefore, the claimant ought to have been compensated adequately for the four fractures, the pain and suffering he had undergone, the loss of income during the period of disablement in and outside the hospital, the attendant charges, the transport charges, the expenses of extra nourishment, the damage to clothing and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to which he is entitled, though it is true that no temporary or permanent total or partial disability has been alleged or proved. The four fractures, etc., even at the scale adopted by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, should have to be compensated with a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. The period of hospitalization itself was for more than three weeks and the very nature of the injuries would have disabled the claimant from carrying on his avocation at least for three months. The loss of income also should be adequately compensated and the claimant being a business man can be considered to have lost at least Rs.10,000/- due to confinement to bed for about three months. The attendant charges, the transport charges, the extra nourishment, etc., and the inevitable medical expenses had he had incurred in respect of the treatment at the hospitals being indicated by the very prescription of medicines under Ex.A-7-Discharge Summary, etc., also had to be taken care of by awarding a further compensation of Rs.20,000/- and the total compensation which could have been reasonable and adequate is Rs.50,000/-. However, on the enhanced portion of the compensation, interest can be confined to 6% per annum in view of the length of time for which such interest has to be awarded, while proportionate costs, of course, shall follow suit. 12. Therefore, the award, dated 08.07.2002, in O.P.No.1281 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.35,000/- with interest 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. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, accordingly, in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 29th March, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4125 of 2003 Date: 29th March, 2011 KL