IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY M.A.C.M.A. NO.4040 OF 2008 Dt.16.2.2010 Between: Gali Ramakrishnama Naidu … Appellant And Mantiray and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY M.A.C.M.A. NO.4040 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the insured victim of an accident that has occurred while he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing No.AP 03L 0188, feeling aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati (for short, “the Tribunal”). For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, it is not necessary to refer in detail to the manner in which the accident has occurred, because as regards the factum of negligence there is no dispute over the finding that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No.1 which was insured with respondent No.2. The appellant claimed a total sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as damages, i.e., Rs.1,50,000/- towards special damages and Rs.2,50,000/- towards general damages. The Tribunal on the basis of the available evidence, including Ex.A.3 – wound certificate, awarded Rs.60,000/- towards compensation for nine fractures and Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for other injuries which come to Rs.85,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.98,140/- towards medical expenses. Accordingly, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,83,140/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. At the hearing, Sri J. Ugra Narasimha, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal failed to award any compensation for the partial permanent disability, which was estimated at 30%. He also submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards extra nourishment. Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company, submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding compensation by treating the fractures as separate injuries though it has purported to follow Schedule-II to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) while awarding compensation for grevious and simple injuries. He submitted that since the Insurance Company has not filed appeal, he cannot ask for reduction of the compensation, but, however, he pointed out that the sum of Rs.98,140/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is not permissible under Schedule-II. On this premise, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that what has been already awarded in favour of the appellant is excessive and therefore there is no warrant for further enhancement. The law is well-settled that though the entries in Schedule-II need not be relied upon as the ultimate standard for awarding damages in claims arising under Section 166 of the Act, nevertheless, the said schedule can be taken as a guide in assessing compensation in a claim under Section 166 of the Act. According to Ex.A.3 – wound certificate, the appellant had received nine injuries. Injuries 1 to 6 and 8 are contusions of different dimensions, injury No.7 is a lacerated injury and injury No.9 is an irregular lacerated injury. In addition to these injuries, the X-ray Repot revealed multiple fractures numbering twelve. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- for each fracture and Rs.25,000/- for the injuries some of which are grevious and some of which are simple in nature. Looking to the nature of the injuries and fractures, I am of the view that awarding of Rs.85,000/- towards these injuries, including fractures, as compensation cannot be said to be excessive even de hors Schedule-II. As far as the awarding of the sum of Rs.98,140/- towards medical expenses, the claim is supported by medical bills, marked as Ex.A.5. The authenticity of these bills is not in dispute. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the Tribunal allowing the claim for the said sum. The Tribunal, however, disallowed the claim for extra nourishment. No reasons have been given by the Tribunal to reject this claim. Having regard to the nature of the injuries suffered by the appellant, it is reasonable to presume that he would have taken rest and consumed nutritious food at least for a period of three months. In my opinion, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- on this count. With regard to the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of income on account of permanent partial disability, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company, the appellant failed to show any proof that on account of permanent partial disability he has suffered loss of income. Though the Tribunal has rejected the appellant’s claim for loss of income by disbelieving the doctor’s evidence regarding the permanent partial disability, the ultimate rejection of claim for compensation need not be interfered with. For the above mentioned reasons, the Award of the Tribunal is modified by holding that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16.2.2010 bnr