IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2360 OF 2008 & CROSS OBJECTIONS SR. No.36423 OF 2008 M.A.C.M.A.No.2360 OF 2008 Between:- The Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Company Limited., H.No.4-3-316, A, Masab Tank, Near N.M.D.C., Hyderabad. …Appellant A n d N.Mahipal Reddy and another …Respondents A N D CROSS OBJECTIONS SR. No.36423 OF 2008 Between:- N.Mahipal Reddy …Cross objector A n d The Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Company Limited., 4-3-316, A, Masab Tank, Near N.M.D.C., Hyderabad and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2360 OF 2008 & CROSS OBJECTIONS SR. No.36423 OF 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: This appeal and cross-objections are directed against the award dated 04-10-2001 in O.P.No.821 of 1996, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for the short ‘the tribunal’) wherein the claim of the first respondent herein was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.1,96,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Arguments of both sides in appeal and cross-objections are heard. Perused the records. 3. The first respondent herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.4 lakhs on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17-07-1996. According to him, on that date, he was coming from Hyderabad to Nizamabad in a Maruthi car bearing No.AP 25B 7272 by driving the said vehicle and at about 04-45 p.m., in the outskirts of Kamareddy, a lorry bearing No.AP 9T 5727 came in the opposite direction, in high speed, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car, as a result of which the claimant sustained fracture of right leg, dislocation of hip joint, besides injuries to head and other parts of the body. The claimant was initially treated at Kamareddy Hospital and was later shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, where he was inpatient for 20 days. The right leg of the claimant was operated upon by Orthopaedic Surgeon at Apollo Hospital and another operation was performed on the head of the claimant by Neuro Surgeon for which the claimant received 33 sutures on the head. It is further pleaded that the claimant was a businessman running Hero Honda showroom by name M/s Venkateshwara Enterprieses and was earning income of Rs.15,000/- per month. 4. The second respondent-owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The appellant-insurer filed counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. On the strength of the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues for trial: (i) Whether the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. AP 9T 5727 by its driver? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and from which of the respondent? (iii) To what relief? 6. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B-1 copy of the policy was marked on behalf of the insurer. Exs.C-1 to C-11 medical evidence was also marked. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,96,000/-, which included a sum of Rs.95,435-15 Ps towards medical expenses. The tribunal did not, however, elaborate as to how the balance amount of Rs.1 lakh was arrived at and under what sub-heads and on what basis. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal. The claimant also filed cross-objections in SR.No.36423 of 2008 seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. The finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, is not seriously challenged. It is also not disputed that the claimant sustained fracture of right acetabulum besides head injuries and other injuries and that he was initially taken to Kamareddy Hospital and from there he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, where he was inpatient for 20 days, during which period he was operated upon for fixing screw for the fracture injury of the right leg. The medical evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 coupled with Ex.A-4 and Exs.C-1 to C-11 establish the nature of the injuries and the treatment undergone by the claimant at Apollo Hospital which included surgery. Exs.A-6 and A-7, the medical bills would show that the claimant had incurred an expenditure of Rs.95,435-15 Ps, which was rounded off by the tribunal to Rs.96,000/-. It is in the evidence of P.W.2 that the claimant is required to undergo two more surgeries, which would cost him Rs.20,000/- and Rs.50,000/-. The learned cross-objector/claimant would submit that the claimant, in fact, had undergone the said surgeries spending much more amount. Though no evidence is produced before the Court showing the same, the fact remains that P.W.2, who treated the claimant and issued the disability certificate-Ex.C-1 also stated that the claimant has to undergo two more surgeries, which would cost a total amount of Rs.70,000/-. The tribunal, however, ignored the said aspect while ascertaining the total amount of compensation. The evidence on record would also show that the claimant was a businessman running Hero Honda motorcycle showroom. The medical evidence on record shows that the claimant has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 30% on account of fracture injury to the right acetabulum, which has resulted in shortening of the leg. The claimant has also filed Ex.A-8 copy of intimation under income tax Act to show that he is an income tax assessee. Having regard to the nature of the injury sustained by the claimant and the fact that he was hospitalized for a period of about 20 days during which period he underwent a surgery as well and that the injury has resulted in partial permanent disability to the extent of 30% on account of shortening of the leg, the amount of Rs.1 lakh awarded by the tribunal, presumably towards pain and suffering, extra nourishment, attendant charges, transportation, loss of earning capacity and damages towards loss of supervision, is considered to be reasonable. The amount of Rs.96,000/- awarded towards medical expenses cannot also be interfered with, as the same is borne out by the medical bills-Exs.A-6 and A-7 produced by the claimants. However, the claimant is also held entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/-, which he is required to spend in connection with the two surgeries he was advised to undergo in future. The claimant is, therefore, held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,66,000/- (Rs.1,96,000/- + Rs.70,000/-). The interest awarded by the tribunal at 12% per annum is considered to be on the higher side. In view of the prevailing market rate of interest, it is considered that awarding interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition would be just and reasonable. 9. In the circumstances, the claimant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,66,000/- with interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 10. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal and cross-objections are disposed of as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 07th July, 2010. Lrkm.