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.4606 of 2003 Between: V. Aparna .. Appellant AND V. Someshwar & 2 others .. Respondents AND CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.166 of 2004 Between: V. Samhitha .. Appellant AND V. Someshwar & 2 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.4606 of 2003 and 166 of 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals are directed against the awards in M.V.O.P.Nos.210 and 239 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Warangal, dated 05.06.2003, arising out of the same accident. 2. The factual background for the appeals is that the first respondent herein, his wife, the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.239 of 2000, and his minor daughter, the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.210 of 2000, were travelling in a Matiz car to Hyderabad from Warangal on 10.09.1999 and lorry No.AP 16T 4579, coming in the opposite direction, was dashed against by the car due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the first respondent. The wife and daughter sustained severe bodily injuries. Jangaon Police registered Crime No.102 of 1999 against the first respondent and huge expenses were incurred for treatment of the claimants. The second respondent is the owner of the car and the third respondent is the insurer and, hence, the claimants sought for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- each against the three respondents jointly and severally. 3. In both the claims, respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte and the insurer alone contested claiming that the claimants were travelling in the car as unauthorized passengers and the insurance company did not cover their risk. The owner of the lorry No.AP 16T 4579 is a necessary party to the claims. There was no rash or negligent driving by the first respondent, who is the husband and father of the claimants, respectively. The insurer was not informed by the owner of the vehicle about the accident and the first respondent was not having a valid licence at the time of the accident. The insurer sought for protection under Sections 147, 149 and 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. Hence, the insurer desired that the exorbitant claims be negatived. 4. The Tribunal framed identical issues in both the claims about the rash and negligent driving of the car driven by the first respondent, the entitlement of the claimants to compensation, its quantum and against whom. 5. During the course of enquiry, the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.239 of 2000 was examined as P.W.1 in both the cases and Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked in M.V.O.P.No.239 of 2000, while Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked in M.V.O.P.No.210 of 2000. 6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned awards noting that the first respondent did not contest the allegation of his rash and negligent driving and Ex.A-1-First Information Report clearly attributed rashness and negligence in driving to the first respondent. The claims of P.W.1 in both the claims about the rash and negligent driving of the car were unrebutted by any other evidence and, hence, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. The Tribunal also noted that the insurance policy showed that the second respondent paid the premium as the owner and the vehicle was insured as a private vehicle. The claimants were travelling in the same as unauthorized passengers whose risk was not covered by the insurance policy. The relationship between the claimants and the first respondent was also suppressed and consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the third respondent/insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal held respondents 1 and 2 to be jointly and severally liable to pay just and equitable compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal considered that in both the cases, the doctor was not examined, any x-ray films were not filed, the Radiologist’s reports were not produced and the expenditure under the medical bills was not proved by examining any person. Still, as the Tribunal felt that the claimants sustained injuries in the motor accident, it granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards purchase of medicines, extra nourishment, pain, suffering and mental agony. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum from the dates of the petitions till the date of realization and proportionate costs. 7. The claimants were aggrieved by the meagre compensation and filed the two appeals respectively contending that the documents filed by the claimants were not appreciated, the medical bills were not looked into, the loss of earning capacity of the claimants was not compensated and, hence, they desired that the balance of the compensation claimed by them also be awarded. 8. Respondents 1 and 2 remained unrepresented before this Court also in spite of being served with notices of the appeals and the third respondent/insurer alone entered appearance in the appeals. As the grounds of appeal did not refer to any challenge against the dismissal of the claims against the insurer on the ground of the claimants being unauthorized passengers in the private car not covered by any insurance policy, the non-liability of the insurer, as ordered in the impugned awards, is not the subject of adjudication in these appeals. 9. Similarly, the conclusion of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent leading to the accident is also not under challenge by any party and the ownership of the car with the second respondent to the claims is also not in dispute. Consequently, the joint and several liability of respondents 1 and 2 to justly and adequately compensate the claimants cannot be in doubt. 10. It is only the quantum of just and adequate compensation that is in question. 11. In the written statements of the insurer, notwithstanding the general denials, it was specifically stated that the claimants are put to strict proof of the specified injuries and when the insurer pleaded that the claimants were travelling in the vehicle as unauthorized passengers, the travel and the incident cannot be considered to have been specifically denied. The cross-examination of the claimants did not at all suggest specifically that the claimants did not suffer the injuries alleged and did not get the treatment they claimed. 12. The claimant in M.V.O.P.No.239 of 2000 claimed that she sustained a fracture to the lower end of radius comminuted (R) and simple injuries all over the body. She also claimed to have been treated at Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad from 10.09.1999 to 11.09.1999 under Dr. P.N. Prasad. She also claimed to have taken bed rest under the advice of the doctors for four months. Ex.A-3-Medical Certificate issued by Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad is about the claimant suffering the fracture of lower end of radius comminuted (R) which was a grievous injury. Exs.A-5 to A-9 are the medical bills showing an expenditure of about Rs.2,800/- towards purchase of various medicines at about the relevant time. The grievous injury caused due to the accident and the treatment undergone having not been specifically denied by the insurer, the evidence of P.W.1 on oath corroborated by her documents could not have been ignored by the Tribunal altogether in assessing the compensation. Apart from the expenses incurred under Exs.A-5 to A-9-Bills for purchase of medicines, the claimant would have undoubtedly incurred other expenses towards extra nourishment, attendant charges, damage to clothing, transport and other inevitable expenses during the period of hospitalization and disablement. The claimant would have been entitled to a minimum of Rs.5,000/- under those heads above including the medical expenses and towards the pain and suffering in respect of the grievous injury, even the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, prescribes a compensation of Rs.5,000/-. In claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, conventional sums granted under that head are much higher. For the grievous and simple injuries suffered in the accident, the claimant would have been entitled to at least Rs.15,000/- and the other pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to which the claimant is entitled due to temporary disablement being confined to bed on doctors’ advice, etc., should have been compensated with at least another Rs.5,000/-. The grant of a compensation of Rs.25,000/- would have been reasonable and just. 13. The case of the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.210 of 2000 is almost similar and the minor girl also suffered fracture of Tibia and other simple injuries all over the body. She also was issued Ex.A-3-Medical Certificate about the grievous injury and like her mother, the minor girl also would have incurred the necessary medical expenses and would have suffered the same degree of pain and suffering or even more in view of her tender age and under all the pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads of damages similar to the above, the claimant herein also can be considered entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- in toto towards compensation. 14. Interest on the enhanced compensation also can be at the same rate of 9% per annum in view of the decrease in the value of rupee over the years and deprivation of the claimants of just compensation for so long. Proportionate costs also shall follow suit. 15. In the result, the awards, dated 05.06.2003, in M.V.O.P.Nos.239 and 210 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Warangal, are modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.20,000/- each with interest thereon at 9% per annum from the date of the petitions till the dates of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation awarded to the claimants respectively by the impugned awards. 16. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are 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 Nos.4606 of 2003 and 166 of 2004 Date: 29th March, 2011 KL