IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH (16TH) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.1255 OF 2008 Between: Tirumalasetti Tataji … Appellant And: K.S.Srinivasa Rao and two others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.1255 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 13.06.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.559 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III-Additional District Judge), (for short ‘the Tribunal’), Kakinada, wherein the said claim application filed by the appellant herein, was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.90,500/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/insurance company. Perused the record. 3. The appellant filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.03.2002. According to the claimant, he was proceeding to his work in Shipping Harbour, Kakinada on a cycle and at about 08.30 P.M., a lorry bearing No. AP 5T 1955 dashed against the cycle from backside, as a result of which the claimant sustained multiple injuries, including fracture of pelvic bones. A case in Cr.No.27 of 2002 was registered against the driver of the lorry. According to the claimant, he was a labourer earning Rs.200/- per day and on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident, he lost his source of livelihood. 4. Respondents 1 and 2, driver and owner remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked on behalf of the claimant and Exs.X-1 and X-2 were also marked. No oral evidence was adduced by the 3rd respondent insurer but 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 lorry AP 5T 1955 by its driver. The said finding has become final as no appeal is filed by the insurer. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.90,500/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. Not satisfied with the same, the claimant filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 7. As the medical evidence available on record i.e., the testimony of P.Ws.3 and 4, the doctors who treated the claimant, coupled with Ex.A-2, wound certificate, and Ex.X-1, the case sheet, and Ex.X-2, the X-ray, would show that besides three simple injuries, the claimant suffered two grievous injuries of fracture of pelvic bone on both sides and that he was admitted as inpatient in Government General Hospital, Kakinada from 08.03.2002 till 28.03.2002 and during the said period he underwent two surgeries on 08.03.2002 and 25.04.2002. The evidence on record also shows that on account of fracture of pelvis, there has been rupture to urethra leading to urinary problem which according to P.Ws.3 and 4 is a continuous one. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering, which is considered to be reasonable having regard to the nature of injuries. Though the appellant claimed Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses, he produced medical bills Ex.A-4 worth only Rs.2,103/- and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards medical expenses. However, as the amount of Rs.2,500/- awarded towards extra nourishment is considered to be very low, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, and also the length of hospitalization and the treatment undergone by him, which included two surgeries, it is considered that a sum of Rs.10,000/- can be awarded to the claimant towards extra nourishment. Further, in view of the fact that the claimant suffered fracture of both pelvic bones leading to urethral rupture which condition would necessarily require him to seek assistance of some attendant even for his daily chores, it is considered just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges during the period of hospitalization. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards lost of past earnings, taking the income of the claimant at Rs.50/- per day. As the claimant is stated to be a labourer working in shipping harbour, his income can reasonably be estimated at Rs.100/- per day and at that rate, he is entitled for loss of earnings for a period of four months in a sum of Rs.12,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and future treatment. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, the said amount is considered to be just and reasonable. 8. In the circumstances, the claimant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,08,000/- with interest at 9% per annum on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition and at 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the appeal. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 9. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 16th September 2011 Lrkm.