IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4150 of 2003 Between: K. Ramakrishna Reddy .. Appellant AND V. Harischandra Reddy and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.132 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Anantapur, dated 19-07-2002. The appellant along with others was travelling in jeep No. AP04 B54 on 18-02-1995 and at about 5 P.M. the bus No.AP02 T2467 coming from Pulivendula side dashed against the jeep resulting in multiple fractures and grievous injuries to the appellant. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus and the appellant was treated at Y.S. Rajareddy hospital at Pulivendula and then at M.S. Ramaiah Medical College hospital at Bangalore where he was an in-patient and spent Rs.20,000/- towards medical treatment and other expenses and hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.75,000/- from the owner and insurer of the bus. The owner and insurer of the jeep were also impleaded as formal parties. While the owners of the vehicles remained ex parte, the insurers put the claimants to strict proof of the claims and denied the drivers having valid driving licences and the vehicles having valid permits. The 4th respondent contended that the liability is only that of respondents 1 and 2, as the negligence and rashness of the bus driver caused the accident. The claimant was also stated to be an unauthorized passenger of the jeep not entitled to be compensated. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the claimant to compensation and during the course of enquiry, examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award noting that out of 15 persons travelling in the jeep, two persons died and others were injured in the accident. The Tribunal also noted that the evidence of P.W.1 corroborated by Ex.A.1 first information report and Ex.A.2 charge-sheet remained uncontradicted and probablised that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal noted that the documents produced by P.W.1 proved that he took treatment for the injuries suffered by him including dislocation of right jaw, fracture on the forehead, dislocation of tooth and injuries on the left elbow and left forearm. The Tribunal observed that the discharge summary Ex.A.8 from M.S. Ramaiah Medical College hospital showed only two injuries, namely, fracture of mandible on the right side and laceration on the forehead. The discharge summary was relied on to show that the claimant admitted himself in that hospital on 19-02-1995 itself and was discharged on 01-03-1995 and hence, the Tribunal considered it just to award Rs.30,000/- in total with interest at 9 per cent per annum and proportionate costs as compensation. The injured claimant was aggrieved by the meagre compensation and contended in this appeal that the compensation should have been proportionate to the gravity of the injuries suffered by him and permanent disability left forever. He also contended that reasonable interest ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal on the compensation. Heard Sri K. Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Respondents 1, 3 and 4 were stated to be not necessary parties to the appeal. The finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the bus driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving remained unchallenged and has become final and the ownership of the bus with the 1st respondent and its subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent are not in dispute and the joint and several liability of respondents 1 and 2 to justly and adequately compensate the claimant is, therefore, not in question and the quantum alone is the subject of determination in this appeal. Ex.A.1 first information report and Ex.A.2 charge-sheet under which the driver of the bus was prosecuted show that the appellant would have suffered grievous injuries in the accident. The driver was convicted on admission as seen from Ex.A.4 judgment and apart from Ex.A.6 bills and Ex.A.5 receipt, Ex.A.8 discharge summary issued by M.S. Ramaiah Medical College hospital, Bangalore shows that the appellant underwent treatment from 19-02-1995 to 01-03-1995 at that hospital for treatment of laceration on the forehead and fracture of mandible on the right side. The treatment at the super specialty hospital obviously would have costed the appellant considerably and though all the relevant bills are not produced before the Tribunal, the injured claimant as P.W.1 stated on oath that he incurred an expenditure of about Rs.20,000/-. The actual medical expenses, charges of hospital, cost of medicines, attendant charges, transport, extra nourishment and other incidental expenses apart from loss of earnings during the period of disablement and treatment would have amounted to a sufficiently big sum for the injured claimant and even if it is assumed that there would be an element of exaggeration in stating the expenses, he could have incurred not less than Rs.15,000/- towards such expenditure. The ordinary and natural course of human events also suggest that he would have suffered much pain and suffering for the fracture of mandible and the laceration on the forehead also would have taken considerable time to heal. Grant of about Rs.15,000/- for grievous injury and Rs.5,000/- for laceration making a total of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering would be reasonable and just. Towards all other pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages including loss of earnings, a further sum of Rs.5,000/- would have been considered to be awarded and a total compensation at Rs.40,000/- would have been the just and adequate compensation to which the claimant is entitled. The compensation awarded under the impugned award has to be, therefore, enhanced to that extent and in view of the length of time for which interest has to be paid on the enhanced compensation, it can be confined to 6 per cent per annum apart from granting proportionate costs. The 2nd respondent against whom alone the appeal was filed is liable to answer such claim having to indemnify the owner of the bus, the 1st respondent, under the subsisting contract of insurance. Accordingly, the award dated 19-07-2002 in O.P. No.132 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Anantapur is modified against the 2nd respondent by awarding a further compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with interest thereon at 6 per cent 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 Tribunal under the impugned award and the appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 15-03-2011 Svv