IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V AFZULPURKAR FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.652 of 2001 Between: Varakantham Venkatamma …Petitioner / Appellant AND A.Saidi Reddy and another …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.652 of 2001 ORDER 1. This appeal is ﬁled by the claimant who suﬀered injuries in a motor accident occurred on 05.10.1998. It was claimed that she was travelling in the oﬀending lorry bearing registration No.AEK 9234 along with two bags of rice, when the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the oﬀending vehicle. Police registered crime No.117 of 1998 against the driver of the said vehicle. It was claimed that appellant was earning Rs.1,500/- per month as agricultural labour and she sustained grievous and serious injuries resulting in fracture of both the legs, which ultimately led to amputation of one of the legs. A claim petition in O.P.No.929 of 1998 on the ﬁle of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Nalgonda, (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity) was ﬁled by the claimant seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal, by its order dated 20.10.2000, restricted the compensation to Rs.68,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal. 2. The Insurance Company contested the claim by denying its liability on the ground that public carrier permit is violated in this case and also denying that the oﬀending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked and the Insurance Company did not examine any witness, but marked Ex.B.1 policy. On consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle in question and consequently found that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. To the extent of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal found that there is no evidence of earnings of the appellant, but however, medical bills shows that she suﬀered one crush injury on the left foot, swelling and deformity on the left leg lower 1/3rd and other serious laceration injuries. The medical bills under Ex.A.6, which were quantiﬁed at Rs.13,000/-, were directed to be reimbursed to the claimant by the Tribunal, apart from Rs.20,000/- towards crush injury, Rs.5,000/- towards laceration injuries. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.3,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suﬀering, aggregating the total compensation to Rs.68,000/-. Hence this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that monthly income of the claimant of Rs.1,500/- per month as agricultural labourer, was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. He also submits that the Tribunal, without concentrating on the serious disability suﬀered by the claimant, awarded the compensation. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends that the appellant was travelling in a public transport vehicle and as such, she has to be treated as unauthorized passenger and the liability imposed on the Insurance Company itself is not justified. 4. I have considered the aforesaid rival contentions. To the extent of quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the appellant states that neither there is any evidence of earnings or disability of the claimant nor the said claims are established by any document, either directly or indirectly. So far as the contention of the learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company with respect to the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, it is evident that they have not ﬁled any appeal against the ﬁndings of the Tribunal, which held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. Further, the accident took place on 05.10.1998 after the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’, for brevity) by Central Act 54 of 1994. Under Section 147 sub-clause 1(b) of the Act, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation with respect to the owner of the goods or his authorized representative travelling in the vehicle. The case of the appellant that she was travelling along with her goods was not rebutted by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal and for that reason also, the said contention of learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company is not sustainable. The owner of the oﬀending vehicle as well as the Insurance Company are, therefore, jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 5. To the extent of quantum of compensation, no doubt there is no evidence of earnings of the appellant nor there is any disability certiﬁcate to assess the disability or deformity suﬀered by her. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Ex.A.7 – Photographs, which clearly show that both legs of the appellant have suﬀered serious injuries. The appellant is already advanced in age by the time of ﬁling of claim petition and when she is aged 50+ having suﬀered such injuries, the disability caused to her cannot be really doubted. In addition, the Tribunal itself has found that there is a crush injury on the left foot, which is evident in the photographs as well. Further, the speciﬁc case of the appellant that she suﬀered amputation of one leg also remained un-rebutted by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal, therefore, ought to have considered the said aspect while assessing the quantum of compensation. Under Note 5 of Schedule II of the Act, it is provided that the compensation is payable in case of disability to the victim resulting in loss of income for the actual period of disablement not exceeding 52 weeks. Therefore, the percentage of disability is required to be taken into consideration while assessing the annual loss of income. The said criteria, however, cannot be applied in the present case, as there is no evidence of either the earnings or the percentage of disability of the appellant. Also, there is no evidence of any doctor nor there is any disability certiﬁcate produced before the Tribunal. 6. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I feel it just and proper that an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards crush injury as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, would be appropriate. Further, the other laceration injuries and fractures to both legs suﬀered by the appellant also deserves to be compensated and a sum of Rs.10,000/-, as against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, would be appropriate. Towards medical expenses, though the Tribunal has awarded Rs.13,000/- basing on the evidence of Ex.A.6, serious injuries to both the legs and ultimate amputation of one of the legs of the claimant would require prolonged hospitalization and regular treatment. Though the appellant could quantify medical bills to the extent of Rs.13,000/- under Ex.A.6, the medical treatment, both during the injury period as well as subsequent treatment past-surgery, is necessary to be compensated. Hence, a sum of Rs.30,000/-, as against Rs.13,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, would meet the ends of justice. In addition to the above, a lump sum amount of Rs.30,000/- would be just and appropriate to be awarded towards loss of earnings. In aggregate, the total enhancement would work out to Rs.82,000/-, for which the appellant is entitled. 7. Accordingly, award dated 20.10.2000 in O.P.No.929 of 1998 on the ﬁle of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Nalgonda, is modiﬁed and the award of compensation stands enhanced by a further sum of Rs.82,000/- as indicated under diﬀerent heads as above. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till realization. 8. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ VILAS V AFZULPURKAR, J February 19, 2010 Bvv