IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO MACMA.No. 480 OF 2009 Between: B. Vishweshwar … Appellant/Claimant V/s. 1. M.A. Zamil [R-1 dismissed for default vide Court Order dt.15/12/08] 2. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office No.II, 3-6-562 Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. … Respondents/Respondents Counsel for the Appellant/Claimant : Sri N. Ashok Kumar Counsel for the Respondents : R-1 dismissed for default Vide CO. dt.15/12/08 R-2 Appearance Smt.Pushpinder Kaur The Court made the following : [Judgment follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO MACMA.No. 480 OF 2009 J U D G M E N T : Aggrieved by the award in OP.NO.1137 of 1996 dated 26/11/2002 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, [for short “Tribunal”], the appellant-claimant has preferred MACMA.No. 480 of 2009. 2. Factual matrix of the case is thus: The appellant-claimant is a resident of Taranagar, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy district and he is a businessman. His case is that on 19/02/2006 when he was proceeding on his scooter bearing No.AHS-8207 from Gangaram towards Lingampally and on the way when he reached near Hanuman temple, an Auto bearing No. AAT-9720 came in opposite direction being driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and came on the extreme right side of the road and hit the scooter and thus caused accident. In the resultant accident, petitioner fell down and sustained injuries i.e., fracture to his left collar bone besides other injuries. His scooter was also badly damaged. It is averred that accident was occurred due to the fault of driver of the Auto. It is further averred that appellant- claimant was hospitalised at Gandhi Hospital till 19/09/1996 and subsequently he took treatment in private hospital by incurring huge medical expenditure. On these pleas, he filed O.P. against respondents 1 and 2, who are owner and insured of the offending auto and claimed Rs.65,000/- as compensation under different heads mentioned in the OP. 3. First respondent remained exparte. 4. Second respondent-Insurance Company filed counter and opposed the claim inter alia, denying all the material averments in the petition. R-2 urged to put the petitioner in strict proof of the petition. R-2 contended that the claim is highly excessive and exorbitant. It prayed to dismiss the OP. 5. During trial, PW-1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked on behalf of the claimant. Insurance Policy copy filed by R-2 was marked as Ex.B-1. 6. A perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal shows that issue no.1 is concerned, the Tribunal basing on eye-witness account of PW- 1/claimant-cum-vicrtim coupled with exhibits, A-1 FIR, A-2 Accident Register and Ex.A-3 charge sheet concluded that the accident was occurred due to the fault of driver of the Auto. 7. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal having regard to the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A-2 Accident Register and Ex.A-4 OP chit and prescriptions has observed that the claimant has suffered fracture of his left collar bone besides other simple injuries. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted a total compensation of Rs.35,000=00 under different heads as follows: [i] Compensation for partial Permanent disability .. Rs. 20,000=00 [ii] Pain & suffering .. Rs. 5,000=00 [iii] Loss of earning for two months @ Rs.3,500/- per month .. Rs. 7,000=00 [iv] Medical Expenditure .. Rs. 3,000=00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Rs. 35,000=00 = = = = = = = 8. Thus, the Tribunal granted a total compensation of Rs.35,000/- with proportionate costs and simple interest @ 9% per annum from 04/10/1996 till 22/01/1999 and from 10/10/2002 till the date of realization. It may be noted that the Tribunal did not grant interest for the period of dismissal of the OP and its restoration as per orders in I.A.No. 1090 of 2000 dated 10/10/2002. Hence the appeal by the appellant/claimant questioning the quantum of compensation as low and inadequate. 9. Heard Sri N.Ashok Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant. Smt. Pushpinder Kaur, learned standing counsel for second respondent-Insurance Company. First respondent remained exparte. 10. The learned counsel for appellant-claimant firstly argued that the claimant suffered partial permanent disability to his left collar bone which affects his working capacity and in that context compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low and needs to be revised and enhanced. Secondly, learned counsel argued that the Tribunal ought not to have deprived the appellant-claimant interest for the period of dismissal of O.P. and till its restoration. He prayed that interest may be awarded for that period also, considering that total compensation awarded is not a high amount. 11. Per contra, opposing the appeal, learned standing counsel for Respondent No.2/Insurance Company firstly argued that the compensation granted by the Tribunal under different heads is just and reasonable in the sense that even though the appellant-claimant did not produce any medical bills still Tribunal granted Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenditure and similarly it also granted reasonable amounts under different heads and hence there is no need to revise quantum of compensation. Secondly, learned counsel argued that the appellant- claimant has not proved his disability by producing disability certificate and examined the doctor but still the Tribunal granted a reasonable amount of Rs.20,000/- for his partial and permanent disability, and therefore, there is no need to reconsider the compensation under the said head. Thirdly, learned counsel argued that the Tribunal has rightly declined to grant interest for the period during which the OP was dismissed and again restored, and therefore, there is no need to grant interest for that period also. She prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 12. In the light of the above rival arguments, the point for determination is whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and needs enhancement ? 13. P O I N T : A perusal of the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A-2 Accident Register would show that the appellant-claimant suffered fracture of his left clavicle bone in the resultant accident, which is a grievous injury. Ex.A-2 also shows that the appellant- claimant was treated in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. Then Ex.A-4 O.P. chit also shows that the appellant-claimant was taken to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries and his treatment in Gandhi Hospital, it has to be seen whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is reasonable or not. So far as disability is concerned, though the petitioner could not specifically establish by examining the doctor that he suffered partial permanent disability and the said disability interdicts his daily activities, the Tribunal, it appears basing on the fracture injury to his left clavicle bone has granted Rs.20,000/- treating that the said injury resulted in partial permanent disability. Therefore, as rightly argued by the learned standing counsel for respondent No.2, I see no reason to interfere with the compensation awarded under the said head. 14. The Tribunal granted Rs.3000/- towards medical expenses in spite of the fact that the appellant-claimant was treated in Gandhi Hospital which is a Government Hospital. The Tribunal, it appears, on the consideration that the appellant-claimant had incurred some medical expenditure though he was treated in the Government Hospital has granted Rs.3,000/-. Therefore, as rightly argued by the learned standing counsel for R-2 that there is no need to revise the compensation under the said head. Similarly the compensation under other heads are also reasonable, I am of the considered view that there is no need to interfere with the same. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.35,000=00 as granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in all respects. 15. Now the request of the appellant-claimant that he was unjustly denied interest for the period during which his O.P. was dismissed has to be looked into. The docket order dated 10/10/2002 in OP.No.1137 of 1996 maintained by the Tribunal shows that as per orders in I.A.No. 1090 of 2000 dated 10/10/2002, the dismissal order was set aside and O.P. was restored to file. While passing the award, the Tribunal declined to grant interest from 22/01/1999 till 10/10/2002. Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances and also the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant-claimant and also the total compensation awarded in this case, I think the appellant-claimant ought not to have been deprived of the interest for the period which was omitted by the Tribunal. Hence, this appeal is partly allowed by granting the interest for the period from 22/01/1999 to 10/10/2002 which was omitted by the Tribunal. Interest is awarded @ 6% per annum for the said period. The quantum of compensation and interest for the remaining period as awarded by the Tribunal will hold good. _______________________________ JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO. 05/03/2014 I s L HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO MACMA.NO. 480 OF 2009 Circulation No.17 Date:05/03/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43