THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MACMA NO.674 OF 2007 Dated 22nd February, 2010 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited …Appellant And Kachimanchi Suryanarayana Murthy …Respondent And another Counsel for the appellant: Sri S.Bhoopal Reddy for Sri T.Ramulu Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri T.S.N.Murthy Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri Akshat Sanghi for Sri Sharad Sanghi The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of award dated 19.12.2006 in O.P.No.899 of 2004 on the file of the I- Additional District Judge-cum-I-Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry (for short “the Tribunal”). The New India Assurance Company Limited, respondent No.3 in the O.P, is the appellant in this appeal. For the injuries sustained by respondent No.1, a teacher, in an accident involving jeep bearing No. AP 9 Q 9345, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with the appellant, he made a claim of Rs.6,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) by filing the above mentioned O.P before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- for each of the four fractures; Rs.11,000/- towards other injuries; Rs.10,000/- towards hospital expenses, medical expenses and transport charges; Rs.34,281/- towards loss of earnings and Rs.2,700/- towards expenses for the attendant. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant seriously disputed the award to the extent of awarding of Rs.50,000/- for each of the fractures. The learned counsel submitted that the doctor, who is stated to have issued Ex.A4, wound certificate, has not been examined and therefore, the Tribunal should not have taken into consideration the alleged injuries and awarded the said compensation. Alternatively, the learned counsel submitted that under Schedule-II of the Act, Rs.5,000/- is payable for each grievous injury. Opposing these contentions, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that his client has suffered four fractures and that considering the pain and suffering of respondent No.1, the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.50,000/- for each of the fractures as compensation. The learned counsel lamented that though respondent No.1 has spent Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical bills and other hospital expenses under Ex.A8, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/-. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is no doubt true that respondent No.1 failed to examine the doctor, who is an expert and, whose evidence is relevant in determining the nature of injuries suffered by him. Unfortunately, respondent No.1 failed to examine the doctor. But the fact that respondent No.1 suffered injuries in the accident is not disputed. Even in the cross-examination of respondent No.1, the appellant has not suggested to him that the injuries suffered by respondent No.1 were not grievous in nature. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal to the extent that respondent No.1 suffered grievous injuries does not call for interference. However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- for each of the four fractures. No reasons have been given in support of this award. Since this case arises under Section 166 of the Act, Schedule-II is not strictly applicable, but as held by the Supreme Court in UPSRTC v. Trilok Chandra[1] and reiterated i n Syed Basheer Ahmed v. Mohd Jameel and others[2], though Schedule-II cannot be used as a ready reckoner the same can be treated as a guide to determine compensation under Section 166 of the Act. Under Schedule-II for each grievous injury, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is provided. Inasmuch as the jeep is stated to have run over respondent No.1, the pain and suffering suffered by him would have been acute and severe. Taking this factor into consideration, in my opinion, the award of a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) for each of the four fractures may be reasonable. The Tribunal has, therefore, committed an error in awarding Rs.2,00,000/- for the four fractures. I hold that respondent No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) in all towards 4 fractures suffered by him. As regards the other heads, under which the compensation has been awarded, namely; other injuries (Rs.11,000/-); hospital expenses (Rs.10,000/-); loss of earnings (Rs.34,281/-) and expenses towards attendant (Rs.2,700/-), they are not liable to be interfered with. Finally, regarding medical bills, though respondent No.1 has not filed an appeal, I find the reasoning of the Tribunal rather unacceptable. The Tribunal has treated the documentary evidence regarding medical bills and the other medical record, namely; ECG, blood examination reports etc in the same vein. In respect of medical bills, respondent No.1 has given his evidence. For these bills, no doctor need be examined. If there is a serious dispute regarding the authenticity of the bills, the owner or the insurer as the case may be can dispute the same before the Tribunal by raising a plea on their authenticity. Therefore, in order to render substantial justice, I deem it appropriate to remand this case for the limited purpose of adjudicating the claim of respondent No.1 with regard to medical bills only. It shall be open to the appellant to raise all legally sustainable objections including the one relating to the eligibility of respondent No.1 for claiming reimbursement of medical expenses from his employer. As far as the rest of the award is concerned, the same is modified to the extent indicated above, namely; by substituting the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) for Rs.2,00,000/- towards fractures and award under other heads stands confirmed. Subject to the above, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. The Tribunal shall dispose of the case, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 22nd February, 2010 vrn [1] (1996) 4 SCC 362 [2] (2009) 2 SCC 225