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.2148 of 2001 Between: Kota Venkateswararao .. Appellant AND M. Nageswararao and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.1093 of 1998 dated 08-01-2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur. The factual background for the appeal is that the appellant was travelling in Lorry No.AP.10-T-3156 as its cleaner on 20-07- 1996 at about 6.30 A.M., when the lorry met with an accident by dashing against another lorry from its behind near Dagadarthi and the appellant sustained severe injuries to his right leg and left hand and suffered a permanent disability. He was treated at Government Hospital, Kavali, as inpatient for three days and the police registered Crime No.49 of 1996 and prosecuted the driver of the lorry, and hence, the petitioner sought for compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal, while the insurer contested the claim contending that the driver has no valid driving licence and also the vehicle has no valid insurance policy. The insurer also contended that the compensation claimed is excessive for the simple injuries and put the petitioner to strict proof of all the allegations. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues on the manner of accident and the quantum of compensation and examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 during the enquiry and no evidence was produced by the insurer. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly noting that the evidence of PW.1 corroborated by Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.3-Charge sheet proved the rash and negligent driving of the lorry of the 1st respondent being the cause for the accident. The Tribunal then proceeded to refer to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 about the injuries suffered and the treatment taken by the petitioner and concluded that as 30% disability was suffered by the petitioner as per the disability certificate, the functional disability with impact on the earning capacity can be taken at 25%. The Tribunal assessed the income of the petitioner at 1,500/- per month and calculated the loss of future earnings at 25% of such income multiplied by 17 referable to the age of 19 years of the petitioner by the date of accident. Apart from loss of earnings of Rs.76,500/- in future, the Tribunal also considered it appropriate to award Rs.2,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment and Rs.2,000/- towards pain and suffering. On the total compensation of Rs.80,500/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 12% p.a. and also proportionate costs. The claimant challenged the said award in this appeal contending that just and reasonable compensation should have been granted by allowing the claim as made when the earning capacity got reduced by 30% in tune with the disability suffered by the claimant. The claimant also contended that he spent Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and had in fact filed bills to a tune of Rs.3,830/- in that regard. The pain and suffering were also very inadequately compensated by the Tribunal and extra nourishment, transportation, attendant charges etc., were not compensated at all and hence, the claimant desired that the entire compensation be awarded as claimed in the petition. Sri G.V. Gangadhar, learned counsel, representing Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Jeevan Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent are heard and the 1st respondent is not represented during hearing. The point for consideration is what would be the reasonable quantum of compensation to which the claimant /appellant is entitled? Insofar as the findings of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the lorry being the cause for the accident and the owner and insurer of the lorry being jointly and severally responsible to pay compensation are concerned, the same were not challenged by the parties to the litigation and the said findings have become final. The only question that remains is the extent of the liability of the respondents to compensate the claimant. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 shows that the claimant sustained three fractures in the left upper arm, left fore arm and right thigh respectively and had to be treated initially at Government Hospital, Kavali and then at University General Hospital, Vijayawada, for about three months. The shortening of the right leg with inability to fold the same has resulted in a permanent partial disability of 30% as certified in Ex.A.8 disability certificate and the process of treatment undergone by the petitioner was spoken in detail by PW.2. The petitioner claims to have discontinued as cleaner after the lorry accident and though the percentage of the disability in terms of medical science maybe different from the percentage of disability with reference to the earning capacity, there is nothing on record to justify the Tribunal to presume that the earning capacity could have been reduced only by 25% and not by 30% to which extent there was functional disability of the limb for the claimant as per Ex.A.8. The claimant, who was aged 19 years and at the prime of his life at the time of accident had a tremendous adverse impact due to the accident resulting in permanent partial disability of the limb to a tune of 30% forever for the rest of his life and the resultant incapacity of his earning also should have been calculated at 30% only. If so, the claimant would be entitled to further compensation of about Rs.15,300/- on applying the same multiplier of “17” applicable to his age. The pain and suffering undergone by the claimant with three fractures and hospitalization for more than three months was sought to be compensated only by Rs.2,000/- which by any standards is patently meagre and unjustly low. Taking cue from the compensation generally awarded towards pain and suffering for such grievous injuries in all comparable cases, the claimant can be safely awarded Rs.5,000/- each for each grievous injury or about Rs.15,000/- in total for pain and suffering in addition to Rs.2,000/- already awarded. Insofar as the head of medical expenses under which head can be brought the damage to clothing, the attendant charges, the extra nourishment charges and other miscellaneous expenses, which inevitably would have followed hospitalization of the claimant for three months, a further lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded in addition to Rs.2,000/- already awarded, keeping in view the maximum amount of such medical expenses that can be so reimbursed at a time under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and also keeping in view the treatment of the claimant given in the Government Hospitals wherein the treatment is free. Thus, awarding a further compensation of Rs.35,000/- would be reasonable and just and would be adequately compensating the petitioner in terms of the accepted principles for assessment of the damages under the Motor Vehicles Act and such extra compensation being awarded now shall also carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization keeping in view the length of time for which such interest has to be paid by the respondents from 1998 till now. Proportionate costs of course shall also follow suit. In the result, the award in M.V.O.P.No.1093 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, dated 08-01-2010, is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.35,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment or deposit with proportionate costs on the said sum of Rs.35,000/- also and no further directions need be given regarding disbursement of the compensation at this distance of time. The appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 02-08-2010 Ksn