IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.2294 of 2005 & M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3796 of 2005 Between: Nidasanametla Narimani .. Appellant AND Mattey Venkata Ramana & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.2294 of 2005 & M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3796 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.188 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, at Kakinada, dated 12.07.2005. 2. The appellant, an Anganwadi Teacher, travelled in auto No.AP 5X 8543 on 02.12.2001 at 5.30 p.m. and due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto at high speed, it hit a tree in the road margin causing multiple and grievous injuries to the appellant including fracture and dislocation of right femur, etc. The appellant was treated at Government Hospital, Tuni and Government General Hospital, Kakinada, and thereafter at a private hospital spending Rs.10,000/- and Tuni Rural Police registered Crime No.86 of 2001 against the auto driver. The appellant, earning Rs.2,000/- per month, did not recover in spite of treatment and, hence, sought for a compensation of Rs.80,000/- from the owner and insurer of the auto. 3. While the owner remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer denied all the allegations of the appellant and denied any valid driving licence of the auto driver or the justness of the quantum of compensation claimed. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the manner of the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3, X-1 and B-1 during the course of enquiry. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the claims of the injured P.W.1 corroborated by Ex.A-1- First Information Report in the absence of any rebuttal evidence for the respondents and concluding that the auto driver was rash and negligent in driving leading to the accident. The Tribunal noted that P.W.1 reiterated her claims about the injuries and the treatment and P.W.2, the doctor, stated about the fracture of shaft of right femur requiring surgery and three months’ bed rest. Ex.X- 1-Case Sheet and X-ray were in corroboration of the claims of P.W.2 and due to absence of any medical bills or documents showing any surgery, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,836.60 Ps. towards medicines as shown by Ex.A-3, Rs.2,000/- towards two simple injuries, Rs.5,000/- towards one grievous injury, Rs.500/- towards transport and Rs.2,000/- towards pain, suffering and mental agony. The Tribunal granted interest at 6% per annum on the total compensation of Rs.12,337/- against both the respondents jointly and severally. 6. The appellant challenged the said award contending that the Tribunal should have awarded the entire compensation as claimed on the evidence placed before it. 7. The appellant filed M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3796 of 2005 requesting to receive the Discharge Summary issued by GSL General Hospital, Rajahmundry, as additional evidence and the insurer opposed the request contending that P.W.2 did not treat P.W.1 and even the additional evidence proposed does not show any disability. 8. Heard Sri P. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Nisaruddin Ahmed Jeddy, learned standing counsel for the second respondent/insurer, while the first respondent is unrepresented. 9. The respondents did not challenge the conclusion of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident, the ownership of the auto and its subsisting insurance with the insurer leading to the joint and several liability of both the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the appellant for the injuries and their consequences suffered due to the accident. 10. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the claim of the appellant itself was for Rs.500/- towards transport and extra nourishment, which was straight away awarded. Any damage to clothing was not compensated in the absence of any claim even by P.W.1 about any damage to her clothes. 11. The Tribunal considered that the claims of P.W.1 about her treatment and surgery, etc., were corroborated by P.W.2, the doctor, but it was only the absence of any documentary evidence to show any surgery involving insertion of nails and steel plates that resulted in confining the grant of compensation only for the actual bills for purchase of medicines and treatment. It was in consequence that the fracture/grievous injury and the other two simple injuries were compensated only with Rs.9,000/- in total under heads of pain, suffering, mental agony, etc. However, as the appellant has now come up with M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3796 of 2005 to receive the Discharge Summary as additional evidence, the same can be permitted in the interests of justice and the Discharge Summary can be marked as Ex.A-4. Ex.A-4-Discharge Summary shows that the appellant was treated as inpatient in GSL General Hospital, Rajahmundry, between 25.06.2003 and 27.06.2003 for removal of nails, but a nail could not be removed and was left inside itself. The said Discharge Summary, thus, shows that a surgery earlier could have happened in which nails and steel plates were inserted as part of the treatment for the fracture injury. The appellant should have necessarily incurred some more expenses than awarded in the process and should have suffered more pain and suffering. The scale of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries was more or less that adopted by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’), but this being a petition under Section 166 of the Act, on an overall view of all the facts and circumstances, the compensation can be enhanced by a further sum of Rs.5,000/- in which also, of course, an element of guess and estimate are inevitable. Interest can be granted at the same rate at 6% per annum on the enhanced portion also. 12. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3796 of 2005 is allowed and Ex.A-4-Discharge Summary is received and marked as additional evidence. The award, dated 12.07.2005, in M.V.O.P.No.188 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, at Kakinada, is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.5,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, accordingly, in part without costs. ______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Document received as additional evidence and marked as exhibit as per the order in M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3796 of 2005: Ex.A-4 25.06.2003 Discharge Summary of the appellant issued by GSL General Hospital, Rajahmundry. ______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10th October, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.2294 of 2005 & M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3796 of 2005 Date: 10th October, 2011 KL