IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH (25TH) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M A C M A No.598 of 2008 Between: Smt. Naseem Begum … Appellant And: M/s Vinod Enterprises & another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.598 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 30.10.2007 in OP No.1258 of 2005 on the file of the MACT cum XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the claim of the appellant was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurer. Perused the record. 3. The appellant herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3 lakhs initially and subsequently, amended claiming Rs.5 lakhs for the injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.12.2004. According to her, on that day, she along with other family members were proceeding from Nalgonda to Hyderabad in Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 9 X 7207 and when the same reached Kothagudem X roads, one van bearing No.AP 28 V 5000 came in the opposite direction at high speed, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against Tata Sumo, resulting in multiple fracture injuries to the claimant. The claimant sustained head injury, fracture of right shaft and fracture of right hip and underwent major surgery at Kamineni Hospital and spent more than three lakhs for the treatment and medicines. 4. The first respondent-owner of the vehicle remained ex- parte. The 2nd respondent-insurer filed counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced by the 2nd respondent but Ex.B.1 copy of the policy was marked. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van bearing No.AP 28 V 5000 by its driver and the said finding has become final as no appeal is filed by the respondents. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Not satisfied with the same, the present appeal is filed by the claimant. 6. As seen from the evidence available on record, the appellant sustained multiple injuries, which included fracture of right hip joint and right thigh. PW.2 the doctor, who treated the claimant and performed the surgery on her, testified to the nature of the injuries and the treatment rendered to the claimant in Kamineni Hospital. Ex.A.3 copy of the wound certificate, Ex.A.4 discharge summary issued by Kamineni Hospital would also show the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the treatment undergone by her, including surgery. PW.2 stated that the claimant is having disability to the extent of 60%. The certificate issued by a competent Medical Board properly assessing the physical and permanent disability of the claimant is not filed and in the absence of any such certificate, based on the oral evidence of PW.2 alone, no compensation can be awarded towards loss of earning capacity to the extent of 60%. In fact, the Tribunal awarded Rs.70,000/- in respect of the disability and the said amount is left undisturbed, as no appeal is filed by the insurer questioning the same. 7. The claimant filed Ex.A.5 discharge bill of Kamineni, Ex.A.6 bunch of medical bills and Ex.A.7 Discharge bill of Hyderabad kidney centre, showing total expenditure of Rs.1,95,595/-. Though the Tribunal observed that the claimant has spent the said amount of Rs.1,95,595/-, a sum of Rs.45,000/- is deducted there from for no stated reason and awarded only Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses. When the claimant has produced necessary bills both for purchase of medicines and also treatment in the hospital, which accounted for a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- and the genuineness of the said bills has not been questioned by other side, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the entire amount without making any deduction there from. The claimant is therefore entitled for the said amount of Rs.1,95,000/- towards medical expenses. The evidence of PW.2 goes to show that the claimant has to undergo future surgery for replacement of hip bone and it would cost of Rs.lakh if such replacement is done in Kamineni hospital. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future medical expenses. In view of the evidence of PW.2 about the future surgery, which the claimant is required to under go, it is considered that she can be awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards transport charges and attendant charges. Admittedly, the claimant was admitted in the hospital on 29.12.2004 and discharged on 01.02.2005 with advise to come for regular check up. Hence, the claimant is awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- towards transport charges. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the period of treatment and taking the age of the claimant, some one must have attend on her during the period of treatment and subsequent to the discharge also, it is considered that a sum of Rs.10,000/- can be granted towards attendant charges. The other amounts awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.5000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, are considered to be just and reasonable. In the circumstance, the claimant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rs.70,000/- towards disability + Rs.1,95,000/- towards medical expenses + Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses + Rs.5000/- towards transport charges + Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges + Rs.5000/- towards extra nourishment + Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering) with interest at 7.5% per annum on the original amount from the date of petition, and at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 25.08.2011 bss