IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR M.A.C.M.A. NO.1503 OF 2007 Between : The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep.by its Deputy Manager. .... APPELLANT AND J.Venu Gopal and another. …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR M.A.C.M.A. NO.1503 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company which was respondent No.2 before the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The claim petition was filed by respondent No.1 seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him when the auto trolley bearing No.AP-09W-9244, belonging to respondent No.2 herein, driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant, while he was walking on the road. 3. Respondent No.1 claimed that he sustained multiple injuries and he was shifted to Nirmala Orthopaedic Hospital, where he had undergone treatment as inpatient and he is likely to under go another surgery in future. Respondent No.1 / claimant was working as a milk vendor and claimed that he was earning Rs.3000/- per month and that he had undergone hospitalization and he incurred medical expenses, transportation and lost his earning capacity for about ten months, filed the aforesaid claim petition. 4. Apart from examining himself as PW-1, the claimant also examined the Doctor, who treated him, as PW-2. He also marked Exs.A1 to A7, out of which Exs.A1 and A2 are the First Information Report and certified copy of panchanama and Ex.A4 is the certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A3 is the Medical certificate; Ex.A5 is the discharge card, Ex.A6 is the bunch of medical bills and Ex.A7 is the estimation of expenditure of surgery which he is likely to undergo in future. The appellant marked Ex.B1 Insurance policy and contested the claim. 5. Under the impugned order, on issue No.1, the Court below held that the accident was caused on account of negligence of the auto driver of the auto trolley belonging to second respondent herein. With regard to issue No.2 the Court below found that as per the evidence of PW-2, the claimant No.1 had undergone fracture of both bones of right lower leg, interior dislocation left shoulder and abrasion over medial side of right foot and ankle. Keeping in view, the aforesaid injuries, the petitioner was hospitalized and he had taken treatment as inpatient. As per the hospital record, including the medical bills, the Tribunal below awarded compensation under the following heads: 1) for fracture both bones of right lower leg Rs.35,000/- 2) dislocation of left shoulder Rs.30,000/- 3) Abrasion over right foot and ankle Rs. 2,000/- 4) Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- 5) Loss of income for 4 months bed rest Rs.12,000/- 6) Future operation expenses Rs.25,000/- 7) Bills for medicines Rs. 4,862/- 8) Hospital fee as per Ex.A6 Rs.19,000/- 9) Food and transport and assistance Rs. 5,000/- --------------------- Total Rs.1,42,862/- -------------------- The said aggregate amount with interest @7.5% per annum was awarded and aggrieved thereby the Insurance Company preferred the appeal. 6. Heard both sides. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant primarily contended that the award of compensation of item Nos.1 to 3 is not justified, when the Court below has already awarded compensation for pain and suffering, loss of income for four months bed rest as well as future expenses for operation and reimbursement towards medicines, hospital fees, food, transportation and attendance. The counsel further submitted that under second Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”), damages in case of injuries and disability are prescribed under Clause 4 under the head of pain and suffering which covers the same in respect of grievous injuries non grievous injuries and medical expenses. The amount awarded by the Tribunal below is excessive than provided under second Schedule. 8. Learned counsel for the first respondent / claimant supports the impugned award stating that each of the head is separate and distinct and one does not overlap with the other. So far as the fractures of two bones on the lower limb is concerned, a separate compensation was rightly awarded and similarly for other injuries separate compensation was awarded. He therefore, supports the impugned judgment. 9 So far as Issue No.1 is concerned, the same is not in controversy. The finding of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle needs no interference. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, I have seen the evidence of PW-1 where he asserted that he was getting Rs.3000/- per month and he was aged about 22 years and that on account of accident he had undergone treatment as mentioned above, and as well as a operation was conducted by insertion of steel rod in the right leg. He claimed reimbursement towards expenditure and also towards loss of earnings separately. 10. PW-2 Doctor, who treated respondent No.1 / claimant, stated in his evidence that Ex.A7 is the estimation certificate, in which it is stated that the respondent No.1 may have to undergo operation for removal of implants. In the cross-examination, he stated that there is no affect on his business on account of injuries. This is therefore, not a case where there is any disability to the first respondent. Insofar as the amounts relating to reimbursement of expenditure under Heads 6, 7, 8 and 9, as extracted above, are concerned, there is no controversy and similarly, to the extent of item Nos. 4 and 5 also there is no controversy. The dispute with regard to item Nos. 1 to 3 however, needs to be resolved. It is, no doubt, true that under second Schedule, Clause No.4 the Head of pain and suffering covers grievous injuries and non-grievous injuries, for which the compensation of Rs.5000/- and Rs.1000/- is allowed. In the present case, the Court below has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering apart from separately providing for injuries by treating each injury separately. So far as item Nos. 2 and 3, as extracted above, are concerned, they are simple injuries and only Item No.1 is the fracture injury. 11. Keeping in view, the fact that respondent No.1, no doubt, underwent surgery and he was hospitalized for about four months, I am of the view that the amount awarded by the Court below on item Nos. 1to 3 is excessive and to that extent an interference is necessary. Therefore, keeping in view, second Schedule of the Act, referred to above, I am of the view that an aggregate amount for item Nos. 1 to 4 will be in accordance with law. The Court below has followed the decision of this Court in ULLANKI KANAKA DURGAMMA AND OTHERS V. DANTULURI SURYANARAYANA RAJU AND OTHERS[1] (which was under Motor Vehicle Act, 1939). No doubt, the amount of compensation towards pain and suffering granted by the Tribunal below is Rs.10,000/-. However, it would be appropriate to grant an aggregate amount of Rs.25,000/- for 1 to 4 items together by modifying the award of the Court below to the extent of Rs.77,000/- awarded for item Nos. 1 to 4. The aggregate award to that extent shall stand modified as indicated above. Similarly, the interest awarded by the Court below is @ 7.5% per annum, which is required to be scaled down to 6% per annum in conformity with several decisions of the Supreme Court recently passed. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by reducing the compensation for item Nos.1 to 4 from Rs.77,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. The interest shall stand reduced from 7.5% per annum to 6% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J JULY, 21, 2010 YVL [1] 1997 (1) ALT 739