THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY MACMA No.71 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.01.2008 in MVOP No.2202 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad wherein the said claim application filed by the respondent for compensation was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-RTC and the learned counsel for the Respondent-Claimant. Perused the record. 3 The respondent filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.6,58,918/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25.10.2004. According to the claimant on that day he was travelling in an auto bearing No. AP 36 V 7560 from Jangoan to go to his village Dubbathanda. At about 7.30 PM when the auto reached the outskirts of Cheetoor village, an RTC bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 9442 came in the opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the auto. According to the claimant, he sustained fracture of both legs and fracture of left hand besides other injuries and that he was shifted to Government Hospital, Jangoan where he was treated for two days and thereafter he was shifted to Lifeline hospital, Hanamkonda where he was treated for 25 days as an inpatient. According to the claimant, he was an agricultural cooli. On account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he became permanently disabled. The appellant herein filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability. 4 The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: i. Whether the accident resulting in injuries to the petitioner occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 9442? ii. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation and, if so, to what amount and from whom? iii. To what relief? 5 During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked on behalf of the claimant. R.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked on behalf of the appellant – RTC. 6 On a consideration of the material available on record, on issue No.1, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by its driver. On issue No.2, the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the RTC preferred this appeal. 7 The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by R.W.1 is not seriously challenged. The learned counsel for the appellant – RTC would mainly contend that the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation for permanent disability without there being any proof of such disability. The learned counsel for the respondent- claimant, however, sought to justify the award on the ground that P.W.3, the doctor who treated the claimant has stated in his evidence that the injuries have resulted in partial disability to the extent of 50%. 8 The medical evidence of P.W.3 coupled with the injury certificate Ex.A.3 would go to show that the claimant suffered three fracture injuries which are grievous in nature and three simple injuries. The Tribunal awarded Rs.18,000/- for each of the fracture injuries and Rs.4,000/- for the simple injuries towards pain and suffering without any basis. As per II Schedule of the M.V. Act, the claimant would be entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- for each of the fracture injuries and Rs.1,000/- for each of the three simple injuries which comes to Rs.18,000/- in all for pain and suffering. 9 The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,22,000/- towards medical expenses based on the bunch of medical bills – Ex.A.7. Having regard to the fact that the claimant was treated as inpatient in the hospital for about 27 days and that he had undergone surgery during the said period, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses based on the medical bills Ex.A.7 is therefore considered just and reasonable. 10 The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. Having regard to the fact that the claimant was shifted initially to Government Hospital at Jangaon and later to Lifeline hospital at Hanamkonda, it is considered that a sum of Rs.7,000/- can be awarded towards transport charges. The amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards extra nourishment does not call for any interference. 11 Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by him and the fact that he was hospitalized for about a month, the claimant must have taken the assistance of some one during the said period to attend on him. It is, therefore, considered just and reasonable to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges. 12 The medical evidence of P.W.3 would go to show that the patient is required to undergo further treatment even after his discharge from the hospital and he needs to undergo two operations for removal of the implants from the left thigh and left fore arm. It is, therefore, considered just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards future medical expenses. 13 The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- towards partial permanent disability based on the evidence of P.W.3, who stated that the injuries have resulted in permanent disability to the extent of 50%. Except stating that the claimant suffered three fracture injuries and that he had 50% disability, which is permanent, P.W.3 has not disclosed as to the nature of the said permanent disability or how and in what manner the injuries have adversely impacted on the physical and functional capacity of the claimant. Admittedly, P.W.3 has not issued any disability certificate showing as to how and on what basis the disability was estimated at 50%. P.W.3 admitted that there is a Medical Board to assess the disability and it is the competent authority. He claimed that he can also assess and give opinion. But he has not issued any disability certificate making an objective assessment of the disability and recording his opinion regarding the impact of the said disability over the functional and physical capacity of the individual. In his evidence P.W.1 also did not specify as to the nature and extent of the disability incurred by him except vaguely stating that he is permanently disabled and he cannot do any work. It is not the evidence of P.W.1 or P.W.3 that the injuries have resulted in the shortening of the leg or that the fractures are disunited or mal- united, and that there is restriction in the movement of the limbs on account of the fractures. In the absence of any such evidence and in the absence of any certificate of disability issued by a competent authority after making objective assessment of the nature and extent of the disability, the oral testimony of P.W.3 that P.W.1 suffered from partial permanent disability to the extent of 50% cannot be accepted as the same does not have any basis. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- towards partial permanent disability based on the vague evidence of P.W.3 is, therefore, unsustainable. In the absence of any evidence showing an objective assessment of the nature and extent of the disability, question of estimating his loss of earning capacity by applying a multiplier does not arise at all. In fact, P.W.3 has not stated that on account of the disability the claimant has lost his earning capacity for ever. Under these circumstances the claimant is not entitled for the amount of Rs.2,55,000/- towards loss of earning capacity on account of permanent disability. 14 Of course, on account of the multiple fractures suffered by P.W.1, he must have necessarily undergone physical discomfort and his movements cannot be presumed to be normal as before. The claimant can only be awarded some amount for the loss of amenities of life on account of the injuries sustained by him and the physical discomfort and the necessity to depend on some attendant. In the circumstances the claimant is held entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 15 The evidence on record shows that the claimant is an agricultural coolie. As the claimant was undergoing treatment for about a month in the hospital and subsequent to his discharge from the hospital also he required follow up treatment, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards loss of income during the period of hospitalization. The said amount does not call for any interference. 16 In the circumstances the claimant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 17 The appeal is allowed partly to the extent stated above. ---------------------------- G.V. SEETHAPTHY, J. 15.06.2011 Kvsn