IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.766 of 2006 Between: Davu Naveen Reddy .. Appellant AND Katpelli Narsimha Reddy and 2 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.620 of 2004 dated 16-02-2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Karimnagar. The appellant was travelling by Auto No.AP-5-V-7919 on 06- 02-2004 at about 5.30A.M., when in the outskirts of Jubileenagar, jeep No.AP-1-T-5760 coming in the opposite direction dashed against the auto. The rash and negligent driving of the jeep in high speed resulted in the appellant receiving injuries on the waist, left thigh and other parts of the body. Karimnagar police registered a case against the jeep driver and the appellant was treated at Banu Orthopaedic Home, Karimnagar where surgeries were performed twice, inserting steel rods in both the legs. By the time of discharge on 07-03-2004, he incurred Rs.85,000/- towards treatment etc., but still he was left with a permanent disability and hence, he sought for a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the jeep. While the driver and owner of the jeep remained ex parte, the insurer denied all the allegations of the claimant and requested for negativing the claim. The Tribunal framed issues about the manner of the accident, the entitlement of the appellant to compensation and the existence of valid and subsisting driving licence and valid insurance concerning the jeep. The Tribunal examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.11 and Ex.B.1 during the course of enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly concluding from the evidence of the injured-PW.1 corroborated by Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2-charge sheet that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent dirivng of the jeep. Coming to the quantum of compensation to which the claimant is entitled in respect of the injuries and their consequences suffered due to the accident, after concluding the jeep driver to be having a valid driving licence and Ex.B.1 to be indicating the subsistence of valid insurance, the Tribunal awarded Rs.12,000/- towards loss of earnings for three months taking the income of the appellant as Rs.3,000/- per month, though it was claimed to be Rs.4,000/- per month by the appellant. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.4,200/- towards transport charges as proved by Ex.A.7. It further granted Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment in the absence of any specific evidence and Ex.A.6-medical bills were not accepted at face value as they are in seriatim and only Rs.15,000/- were granted towards medicines. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.3120/- proved by the bills towards investigating charges and Rs.3,000/- towards purchase of blood. Towards final bills under Ex.A.5, the Tribunal granted only Rs.19,400/- and did not consider the final bill dated 7-3-2004 for Rs.13,900/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.8,000/- towards pain and suffering and further observed that PW.1 was still left with limping, which was certified to be 40% permanent partial disability by Ex.A.9 as spoken to by the doctor, PW.2. The Tribunal considered it appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- towards permanent partial disability. It also awarded Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and on the total compensation of Rs.94,700/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. The claimant filed the present appeal contending that the loss of earnings, the medical bills, the pain and suffering and permanent partial disability were not adequately compensated though the loss was probablised by the evidence on record and hence, he desired that the entire compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- be awarded. Heard Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-insurer and respondents 1 and 2 remained unrepresented before this Court. The rash and negligent driving of the jeep leading to the accident, the ownership of the jeep with the 2nd respondent and the insurance of the jeep with the 3rd respondent are not in dispute. The joint and several liability of the three respondents to justly and adequately compensate the claimant cannot be consequently in doubt. The quantum alone is in question to be considered herein. The Tribunal assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- is obviously due to the absence of any documentary evidence showing the salary of the jeep driver and there is no material to differ from the assessment made by the Tribunal in its experience and wisdom. The transport expenses were reimbursed to the extent proved while extra nourishment again was a matter of guess and estimate. The rejection of Ex.A.6 bills to the extent they are in seriatim cannot be considered unreasonable as the unreliability of such bills is, ex facie, evident. The grant of Rs.8,000/- towards pain and suffering in addition to Rs.3,000/- granted towards mental agony also need not be disturbed as the abstract heads of damages cannot be scientifically measured. That leaves only the disallowance of the final bill dated 7-3- 2004 and the compensation towards permanent partial disability. The final bills marked in Ex.A.5 were in respect of the treatment from 22-09-2004 to 03-10-2004 and 06-02-2004 to 07-03-2004, the last bill being for the second surgery on 23-02-2004. Though both the bills were dated 07-03-2004, an examination of the details given in the two bills shows that the charges of Rs.13,900/- under the first bill were not only towards charges of first surgery, but also towards bed charges for the period of stay in the hospital. The second bill for Rs.13,100/- was only in respect of the charges for the second surgery and the Tribunal appeared to be under an impression that there was duplication of the final bills appearing with the same date which does not appear to be correct. The doctor-PW.2 spoke about the surgeries undergone apart from the claims of PW.1 and therefore, this further sum of Rs.13,100/- should be granted towards the second final bill dated 07-03-2004. Coming to the loss of earning power to be compensated towards permanent partial disability, the assessment of the Tribunal of the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- can be taken as the basis and 40% permanent partial disability in respect of the limping still left for PW.1 for the rest of his life as a consequence of the injuries suffered in the accident can be reasonably assessed as inflicting 10% functional disability with reference to the whole body and any avocation, which PW.1 has to pursue including as a driver. If so, on applying a multiplier of 18 for the age of 22 years of the claimant, the loss of earning power should be compensated by Rs.64,800/- and if it were to be rounded off to Rs.65,000/-, the compensation should be enhanced under this head by Rs.40,000/-. Thus, the compensation should be further enhanced by Rs.40,000/- + Rs.13,000/- (Rs.13,100/- being rounded off to Rs.13,000/-) making a total of Rs.53,000/-. The interest on the enhanced portion of the compensation can be restricted to 6% p.a. in view of the length of time for which the interest has to be paid, and hence, the impugned award has to be modified accordingly. Therefore, the award dated 16-02-2006 in O.P.No.620 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Karimnagar, is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.53,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 22-09-2011 Ksn