IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.258 of 2009 Between: M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd, Hyderabad … Appellant And: D. Anjaneyulu Goud @ D.Anjaneyulu … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.258 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.09.2008 in OP No.919 of 2007 on the file of the MACT cum III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said claim made by the first respondent herein was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.1,37,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 26.02.2007 at about 1.15 p.m. near Pragnapur village. According to the claimant, on that day he was travelling in the car bearing AP 10 AT T/R 6543, on account of the rash and negligent driving by its driver, the vehicle over turned, resulting grievous injuries to the claimant and that he under went treatment by spending considerable amount. 4. The appellant herein-insurer filed counter opposing the claim application and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During trial, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and the doctor, who treated him, was examined as PW.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. RW.1 was examined on behalf of the insurer and Ex.B.1 copy of the policy was marked. 6. 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 vehicle by its driver. The said finding is not seriously challenged. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering, Rs.2,000/- for simple injury and Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses. Accordingly the award was passed for a total compensation of Rs.1,37,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 7. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer is that the amount of Rs.75,000/- granted towards pain and suffering is on higher side. Learned counsel for the first respondent-claimant on the other hand would contend that the Tribunal has not awarded any separate amounts for loss of earnings and other expenses and the total amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair compensation. 8. As seen from the medical evidence of PW.2 coupled with Ex.A.3 wound certificate and Ex.A.4 discharge summary issued by BBR Hospital, the claimant sustained fracture of left femur besides one simple injury and he was hospitalized for a period of one week, during which period, he underwent surgery. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.75000/- towards pain and suffering for the said injuries and Rs.2000/- towards for simple injury. As per the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- only for the grievous injury towards pain and suffering and Rs.1000/- for one simple injury. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses as born out by the medical bills Exs.A.3 to A.6 and A.9 and the same does not call for any interference. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained and also the fact that the claimant was hospitalized for about week and that he underwent surgery, it is considered just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5000/- towards extras nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges. 9. The evidence on record does not disclose that the injuries have lead to any permanent disability. On the other hand, PW.2 testified that the injuries are healed and the fractures are also united and there is no permanent disability and the claimant can attend to his normal work. He further testified that the claimant needs to undergo operation in future for removal of the rod and it costs around Rs.20,000/-. The claimant is therefore held entitled for a sum of Rs.20, 000/- towards future medical expenses. As the injuries have not resulted in any permanent disability, the question of awarding any amount towards loss of earning capacity does not arise. According to PW.1 he could not attend to his business of sale of toddy for a period of two months after the accident. Having regard to the fact that the claimant sustained fracture of left thigh femur, requiring him to undergo surgery for insertion of rod, it is quite possible that he was deprived of his livelihood for a period of two months after the accident. In the circumstances, it is held that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.4000/- towards loss of income for a period of two months. Thus, in all, the claimant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization. 10. The impugned award is modified accordingly. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 15.06.2011 bss