THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1951 of 2002 Date 01-12-2009 Between : M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Divisional Manager, D.O.XI, Malakpet, Hyderabad. .. Appellant And Gaddameedi Chennaiah and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1951 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal is by the Insurance Company, which has secured leave of the Court under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act vide the orders of the tribunal below in I.A.No.1801 of 2001 in O.P.No.2485 of 2000, dated 12-11-2001. The appeal is filed by the appellant primarily questioning the quantum of compensation granted to the first respondent herein. Facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The first respondent herein, who is the claimant before the Tribunal, was aged 28 years at the time of accident i.e., on 30th September, 2000. On the date of accident, he was working as an Electrical Supervisor in Elegant Farm House, Miyapur, R.R.District and while he was going with another co-worker on a scooter bearing No.AHK 6099, a lorry belonging to the first respondent before the Tribunal (second respondent herein) and insured with the appellant herein came in a rash and negligent manner from behind and hit the scooter resulting in the claimant as well as his companions suffering grievous injuries. The claimant suffered compound fracture of both the bones of the right hand and multiple injuries on the upper arm. He had initially taken treatment at Gandhi Hospital and later at private hospitals and undergone surgeries and spent huge amounts towards medical treatment. He filed the present claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The Tribunal below found on issue No.1 that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry and so far as assessment of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal accepted the salary certificate - Ex.A12 issued by the said employer of the claimant wherein it is certified that he is working as Technical Supervisor for the last five years on a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month and that on account of the accident, he has not been able to attend to the work. In view of the evidence that the disability as certified by the Orthopaedic Surgeon P.W.2 being 50% and taking the salary as shown in Ex.A12, the Tribunal below has assessed 50% loss of annual income at Rs.18,000/- and applying the multiplier of ‘17’, the relevant to the age of the claimant at the time of the accident, has calculated the compensation of Rs.3,06,000/-. To the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal also added the amount spent by the claimant on the medical bills, which were 87 in number, totalling to Rs.83,238/-. It was also claimed that the claimant will have to undergo two more surgeries which will cost approximately Rs.42,000/- and taking that into account, the Tribunal granted about Rs.17,000/- for future medical treatment and thereby aggregating the compensation towards medical bills and future treatment to Rs.1,00,000/-. Towards extra-nourishment, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was further granted and thus the total compensation worked out to Rs.4,06,000/- and was restricted to Rs.4,00,000/- as claimed. In this appeal the learned counsel for the appellant very vehemently contended that the salary certificate - Ex.A12 based on which the income of the claimant is assessed itself is inadmissible in law as nobody is examined to prove the said document. Learned counsel has relied upon a decision of Calcutta High Court in Bhaskar Bhattacharya Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd.[1] and it is contended based on para 12 thereon that mere marking of a document without leading evidence of the author of the document would tantamount to only a hearsay evidence. According to the learned counsel, therefore, Ex.A12 is of little assistance in assessing the monthly income of the claimant and secondly the evidence of Doctor/P.W.2, who certified the disability, being not a Doctor who treated the claimant, the reliance of the said disability certificate is also unjustified. Learned counsel also relied upon another judgment of this Court in M.Jayanna Vs. K.Radha Krishna Reddy[2] and particularly Direction (vii) issued therein to the Director of Medical and Health Services to direct all the Doctors working in the Government Hospitals that whenever they treat the injured or the dead, they shall alone appear before the Court to give evidence along with the relevant case-sheets etc. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the assessment and quantification of damages as made by the Tribunal below requires to be interfered. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the cross-examination of P.W.1 as well as P.W.2 does not show that the truth or veracity or genuineness of the said document was disputed by the appellant. In the cross-examination itself the claimant had stated that he was working in the said employer for the last five years since 1985 onwards. It was in fact suggested to him by the appellant that there is ESI coverage and the same is not availed by the claimant. This itself, therefore, shows that the claimant being employee is not in dispute and his qualification as an Electrical Supervisor was also not disputed. The salary certificate - Ex.A12 is issued on the letterhead of the private limited Company, which is the employer of the claimant. Even if it is assumed that the said certificate is not conclusive, as a qualified skilled technical person as an electrical supervisor, it cannot be said that the claimant was not earning even Rs.3,000/- per month, whereas, such a technical person would have earned much more. The age of the claimant being only 28 years, I do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the assessment of compensation by the Tribunal suffers from any error. The medical bills and prescriptions were all exhibited and marked before the Court. Not a single question is directed towards the said documents. Apart from all this, the Tribunal had seen the claimant while in the witness box and has noted its observations in paragraph 10 of the judgment that “there is ugly scar extending throughout the right arm coupled with loss of skin. In other words, his right hand is only an ornamental one. He is not in a position to do any work with right hand.” The photographs of the claimant showing the injured right hand together with negatives is also exhibited as Ex.A6. Further, the Discharge Summary given by the Gandhi Hospital and the certificates issued by the Udai Clinic, the private hospital where the claimant has taken the treatment, amply establishes the major medical treatment which the claimant had to take and the disability he has suffered at such an young age. Even if the certificate issued by P.W.2 on the disability is not accepted as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is enough evidence before the Court below that the right hand of the claimant is rendered useless and it is described as ornamental, which itself establishes the disability and justifies the grant of compensation as assessed by the Tribunal and therefore I am not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal below. The appeal, therefore, has no merits. However, the interest granted by the Tribunal below being at 9% is on higher side. The learned counsel for the respondent also fairly accepts that the 7.5% uniformly being granted in all cases be granted. Accordingly, the decree under appeal to the extent of grant of interest of 9% shall stand modified at 7.5% from the date of claim till realization. C.M.A. is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 01st December, 2009. skmr [1] 2005-ACJ-0-509 [2] 2005-ACJ-0-344