IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.108 OF 2009 Between: E.Giridhar Babu …Appellant A n d A.Surendranath and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.108 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 06- 06-2007 in M.V.O.P.No.33 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V-District Judge), Tirupati, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the said claim application filed by the appellant herein for compensation was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.2,85,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The appellant herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.12,64,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.10.2003. The first respondent herein, the owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte and the second respondent-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim. 4. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-15 were marked on behalf of the appellant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents, but Ex.B-1 copy of the policy was marked on behalf of the respondent. Ex.C-1 physical disability certificate was also marked. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,85,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Not satisfied with the same, the claimant filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement. 6. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal, having observed that the respondents have not disputed the medical bills Exs.A-5, A-10 and A-14 showing a total expenditure of Rs.2,10,000/-, however, awarded a reduced amount of only Rs.1,50,00/- towards medical expenses for no reason. He would further contend that though the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 7.5% on account of fracture to the right leg, as can be seen from the medical evidence on record, the Tribunal without estimating the loss of earning capacity, by applying the multiplier method, awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.75,000/-. He would further contend that the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of earnings during the period of hospitalization for about four months and failed to award any amount towards extra nourishment or attendant charges. 7. It is not in dispute that the appellant/claimant sustained multiple injuries in the accident, which included compound fracture of right tibia. The evidence on record shows that the claimant was shifted to SVRR GG Hospital, Tirupati initially and from there he was shifted to MIOT Hospital, Chennai for better treatment. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that he was discharged from the hospital on 07.11.2003 and again he was admitted on 01.12.2003 and discharged on 11.12.2003 and he was again admitted on 25.12.2003 and discharged on the same day and he was again admitted on 23.02.2004 and discharged on the same day. It is also in the evidence that during the period of hospitalization, he underwent surgery four times and a bone was also removed from his buttocks and inserted into his right leg besides skin grafting and fixation of the plates and screws and on account of the said injury, his movement of right leg became restricted and he suffered permanent disability. Ex.A-2 is the wound certificate showing the nature of the injuries sustained by P.W.1. Exs.A-4 and A-9 are the discharge summaries issued by MIOT Hospital, Chennai. 8. P.W.2, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon at MIOT Hospital, Chennai, testified that P.W.1 underwent external fixation of right tibia on 02.10.2003 and was discharged on 07.11.2003 and was re-admitted on 01.12.2003 for bone grafting and discharged on 11.12.2003 and that he was again admitted on 25.12.2003 for one day and 23.02.2004 for removal of external fixator. He proved Ex.A-5 medical bills and also Ex.A-10 bunch of medical bills issued by the MIOT Hospital as also the discharge summary Ex.A-9. 9. P.W.3, Visiting Consultant Plastic Surgeon in MIOT Hospital, testified that he performed plastic surgery for P.W.1 on 06.10.2003 and 04.11.2003 as mentioned in Ex.A-4 discharge summary. Both P.Ws.2 and 3 have stated that the injuries are grievous in nature. The medical evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, coupled with Ex.A-2 wound certificate and discharge summaries Exs.A-4 and A-9, would go to show that the claimant sustained a compound fracture of right leg, which is a grievous injury and he has to undergo surgery more than once at MIOT Hospital, where he was inpatient for a total period of four months in spells. The appellant filed bunch of medical bills Exs.A-5, A-10 and A-14 and based on them claimed a total amount of Rs.2,10,000/-. The Tribunal observed that the respondents have not disputed the medical bills. In the appeal also, the respondents have not pointed out any discrepancy rendering any of those bills inadmissible. The Tribunal, however, awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses without stating any reason for reducing the amount. When the claimant has filed necessary medical bills in support of his claim towards medical expenses, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the said claim in full and awarding a reduced amount, that too for no recorded reason, is unsustainable. The appellant/ claimant is, therefore, held entitled for the sum of Rs.2,10,000/- towards medical expenses, which expenditure is duly covered by the medical bills produced. 10. According to the claimant, he suffered permanent disability on account of the injury. In support of the same, he seeks to rely upon Ex.C-1 disability certificate said to have to been issued by Dr.P.V.A.Mohandas of MIOT Hospital, wherein it is stated that the claimant suffers from permanent partial disability of 7.5%. The said Dr.Mohandas, who is said to have issued disability certificate, is not examined to prove the contents thereof. The said certificate was marked as Ex.C-1 through the evidence of P.W.2, who is not the doctor concerned who issued the certificate. Even if the contents of Ex.C-1 are taken into consideration, still it is stated therein that the fracture is well united and the claimant is able to walk and run. The only disability if at all noted in Ex.C-1 is that the skin which was grafted is thin papery and avascular and breaks down from time to time. Ex.C-1 does not disclose that the claimant is suffering from any such physical disability as would render him functionally disabled or that it impacts on his earning capacity in any manner. Still the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards permanent disability without, however, disclosing any basis as to how the said amount has been arrived at. As the respondents have not filed any appeal questioning the award, the said amount granted by the Tribunal is left undisturbed. In the absence of any evidence to show that the claimant has suffered any loss of earning capacity on account of alleged physical disability, the question of estimating the loss of earning capacity by applying the multiplier method does not arise. 11. The evidence on record shows that the claimant was inpatient in the hospital for about four months. According to the claimant, he was doing business as a Cable TV operator and also having a share in SV Computers besides being a partner of ELF Gases Distributors. He filed income tax returns Ex.A-7 which shows his income around Rs.10,000/- per month. Having regard to the fact that the claimant was in hospital for a period of four months at Chennai and, therefore, could not attend to his business at Tirupathi, the Tribunal ought to have awarded some amount towards loss of past earnings during the said period of hospitalization. In the circumstances, the claimant is held entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of past earnings. The Tribunal awarded Rs.13,176/- towards transport charges as covered by the transport bills Ex.A-8 and Rs.17,703/- towards transport charges as covered by 16 transport bills Ex.A-11 and Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. Having regard to the nature of the injury sustained and the treatment undergone by the claimant, which included a couple of surgeries and the length of hospitalization, which spread over to four months, it is considered that a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges can be awarded, besides the above amounts awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, in all the claimant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,05,000/-(Rs.2,10,000/- + Rs.75,000/- + Rs.30,000/- + Rs.30,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.40,000/-) with interest at 7.5% per annum on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal 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. 12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed-in-part to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 11th July, 2011 Lrkm