IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.941 of 2002 Between: Kotha Surya Manikyalarao ..Appellant AND Challaboina Satyanarayana and 2 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.342 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, dated 30-04- 2001. The facts leading to the appeal are that the appellant doing medical business at Bhimavaram went to Mahadevapatnam on his Luna AEW-6398 on 28-10-1996 and the van ABK 8383 driven rashly and negligently dashed against him from behind near the Railway gate at bypass road. He suffered grievous injuries and Bhimavaram Rural Police station registered Cr.No.109 of 1996 against the 1st respondent-driver in respect of the accident. The petitioner was treated at the Government Hospital at Bhimavaram and thereafter at Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad, as inpatient for more than 15 days and he incurred a total expenditure of Rs.1,10,000/- towards treatment at both the hospitals. His business was totally lost due to the accident and hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the van. While the driver and owner remained ex parte, the insurer contested the claim putting the petitioner to strict proof of all the allegations including the existence of a valid driving licence for the driver of the van at the time of accident. The insurer claimed the compensation claimed to be exaggerated and desired the petition to be dismissed. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues on the manner of accident, quantum of compensation and liability of the respondents and examined PWs.1 and 2 and RW.1 during the enquiry and marked Exs.A.1 to A.19, B.1 and X.1. The impugned award was passed by the Tribunal, firstly accepting the evidence of PW.1 and noting that as seen from Ex.A.19 certified copy of the judgment in C.C.No.594 of 1996, the 1st respondent-driver was found guilty and was convicted after full trial for an offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver. The Tribunal then referred to the injuries suffered and the treatment taken by the petitioner and observed that the petitioner aged 32 years at the time of accident had five injuries including a grievous injury on his person, when he was first examined by the doctor. The Tribunal also noted that surgeries were performed on PW.1 after the accident, but still he was forced to consult a Specialist at Bhimavaram and then joined Kamineni Hospital. The Tribunal observed that the surgery to the abdomen for rupture of the spleen due to the accident again resulted in rupture of the abdominal wound, which also resulted in development of incessional hernia. The petitioner was noted to have required expert treatment for the complications and the Tribunal, therefore, granted a sum of Rs.98,290/- as evidenced by the discharge report and the medical bills towards medical expenses, Rs.3,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. In all, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,16,290/-, while not awarding any amount towards loss of income though it assessed the same at Rs.3,500/- per month on the basis of the income tax returns filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal found that as the insurance policy was in force and as the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent, the respondents 1 to 3 are liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally and directed the payment of the same with interest at 9%p.a. and proportionate costs. The petitioner challenged the said award in this appeal contending that the expenses themselves were more than Rs.1,10,000/- and no compensation was granted for the loss of business of the petitioner, who was earning Rs.6,000/- per month from the medical business. The appellant also complained against grant of meagre amounts towards pain and suffering, extra nourishment, attendant charges and transport charges and desired that his claim be allowed as prayed for in the claim petition. Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B. Devanand, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent are heard, while none appeared for respondents 1 and 2. Insofar as the findings of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent being the cause for the accident and the joint and several liability of respondents 1 to 3 to justly and adequately compensate the petitioner are concerned, they have become final in the absence of any challenge to such findings by any of the parties to the claim petition. So, it is only the quantum of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled that is left for adjudication in this appeal. The claim of the petitioner that he was doing medical business at his age of about 32 years by the time of accident is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that he suffered five injuries on his person during the accident, out of which one was grievous. The fact that he was treated firstly at Bhimavaram and then at Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad, for the injuries and their consequences is also not in dispute and the petitioner was claimed to have been an inpatient from 28-10-1996 to 28-11-1996 at Bhimavaram and then at Kamineni Hospital and to have been again inpatient from 23-03-2000 to 07-04-2000 at Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad. The evidence of PW.2, the medical officer, who treated PW.1 since immediately after the accident, graphically narrated the abdominal surgery, which PW.1 had undergone for rupture of the spleen and the complications that developed later due to rupture of the abdominal wound. PW.2 was also positive about PW.1 developing hernia subsequently, for which he needed another surgery a second time and prolen mesh was inserted in the abdomen according to PW.2 after the second surgery. The evidence of the medical officer shows that in view of abdominal injury and surgeries, PW.1 was disabled from carrying any weights. It is also seen that the injuries sustained by PW.1 were thus so serious as to result in at least two surgeries and many complications for which he had to get himself treated for a prolonged period starting from 1996 and ending in 2000. The actual expenses proved as noted by the Tribunal towards his treatment were Rs.98,290/-, which were rightly directed by the Tribunal to be reimbursed by the respondents. But, the Tribunal was extremely conservative in awarding the other sums towards damages to which the petitioner is entitled under the relevant heads and did not award any amount towards loss of income. Even assuming that the assessment of the monthly income at Rs.3,500/- per month by the Tribunal is based on the income tax returns filed by the petitioner himself, some reasonable sum should have been awarded towards loss of income, when according to the positive evidence of PWs.1 and 2, he was confined to bed as inpatient in two hospitals for a period of about one month each and apart from being thus an inpatient in two hospitals for two months, the very nature of the surgeries was suggestive that he would not have been in a position to attend to his medical business immediately after being discharged from the hospitals on both the occasions and the loss of income on each occasion would have been for not less than two months each time. If so, the loss of income could have been assessed at least for a period of four or five months on the whole for the petitioner, which the respondents ought to have compensated. For such serious injuries, which resulted in such complications, awarding only Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.3,000/- towards attendant charges are also on the lower side and about Rs.10,000/- each should have been awarded under these two heads, apart from Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earnings for 4 or 5 months. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, needs enhancement at least by Rs.27,000/- under the circumstances on the admitted and proved facts. Though the amounts claimed by the petitioner under various other heads in the claim petition and in the evidence do not appear acceptable at face value, on the evidence on record, the petitioner is clearly entitled to a minimum enhancement of Rs.27,000/- on the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal itself and the award in question has to be modified accordingly. Therefore, the award dated 30-04-2001 in O.P.No.342 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru is modified by enhancing the compensation already awarded by another Rs.27,000/- with interest on such enhanced compensation at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment or deposit and proportionate costs on such sum and no further directions need be given about the disbursement of the compensation at this distance of time. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 02-08-2010 Ksn