IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3254 of 2003 Between: J. Venkat Ram Reddy ..... Appellant AND C. Bal Reddy & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Sri B.A. Prakash Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri Gopala Krishmacharyulu for Sri Ravi Shankar Jandyala The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3254 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of order dated 23.06.2003 in O.P.No.316 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”). The claimant in the O.P. is the appellant, who filed this appeal aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant met with an accident while proceeding on his scooter bearing registered No.AP 28E 6875 from Solipet to Shadnagar, involving lorry bearing No.ADB 5630. The appellant was admitted to Osmania General Hospital and was later shifted to Mahavir Hospital where he has undergone surgery. The appellant has claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation under various heads. The Tribunal has, however, awarded a sum of Rs.23,450/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. At the hearing, Sri B.A. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, raised the only contention, namely; that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in not accepting the receipt produced by the appellant showing that he has paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to Dr. B.S. Reddy, who performed surgery on him. A perusal of the record shows that the only ground on which the receipt produced by the appellant was disbelieved was that on the admitted case of the appellant he has received treatment in Mahavir Hospital and Research Centre and that the receipt produced by him shows that Dr. B.S. Reddy is from Apollo hospitals. I have carefully perused the receipt, which is obviously marked as part of Ex.A9. It was passed on the letterhead of Dr.B.S. Reddy, who is shown to be the consultant in the department of Orthopedics, Apollo Hospitals. I have also perused Ex.A8, the inpatient’s discharge and follow up card, issued by the Mahavir Hospital and Research Centre, which shows that against the column “Dr. Incharge”, the name of Dr. B.S. Reddy is shown. Under the column “brief summary of treatment in hospital” it is written that IM Nailing on right femur was done on 05.01.2000. It is significant to note that the receipt produced by the appellant was not doubted by the respondents, as no suggestion to the appellant, who was examined as PW.1, was put to the effect that the said receipt was fabricated. In contrast, there is a specific suggestion put to PW.1 that Ex.A11 is fabricated. Further more, it is not in dispute that the appellant has received a fracture on right femur and that he has undergone a surgery. Therefore, it is natural that the surgeon, who operated on the appellant, would have charged surgery charges. It is also common knowledge that the doctors work as consultants in more than one hospital and merely because the surgeon has used the letterhead of one of the hospitals that cannot be a ground to term the receipt as fabricated. The Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that in the inpatient’s discharge and follow up card issued by Mahavir Hospital and Research Centre, marked as Ex.A8, the name of Dr.B.S. Reddy has been mentioned as “doctor incharge”. This itself would show that Dr. B.S. Reddy is a consultant doctor for Mahavir Hospital and Research Centre as well. As such, in my opinion, the Tribunal was not justified in not awarding the sum of Rs.10,000/- towards surgery charges. For the abovementioned reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation by Rs.10,000/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27.01.2011 ES