IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTYFOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.717 of 2005 Between: Sumudrala Lakshmi .... Appellant AND Katakam Shravan Kumar …. Respondent JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.579 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar dated 12-1-2005. The appellant herein got down from APSRTC bus at about 5.00 P.M. on 13-6-2002 and was going towards Gunj market for purchasing provisions. Near Meharbaba Music Centre, a Hero Honda motorcycle, driven by the respondent rashly and negligently, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the appellant causing injuries to her left pelvis, for which she was treated by Dr. U.V. Narasimha Reddy, who advised her to take bed rest for 15 days. As there was no improvement, the appellant consulted an Orthopaedic Surgeon on 25-6-2002. When it was revealed that a fracture injury on the pelvis was sustained, on the advice of the doctor, the appellant was treated in Government Hospital, Karimnagar from 27-6-2002 to 12-7-2002 and then in Sri Laxmi Hospital, Karimnagar, where she was underwent a surgery. The appellant claimed to have incurred a total expenditure of Rs.25,000/- and to have lost her earnings for six months being confined to bed and claimed a compensation of Rs.1,31,000/-. The respondent contested the claim contending that the appellant herself was walking on the road without observing the moving vehicles and in spite of the respondent stopping his vehicle on the left side of the road, it was the appellant, who got confused and lost balance and fell on the ground. She did not sustain any injury. As she was blaming the respondent, she was taken to Dr. U.V. Narasimha Reddy, who confirmed that the appellant did not sustain any injury. As she complained of pain, an X-ray was taken on her left hip joint, but no injury was found and the doctor prescribed some tablets for killing the pain, which were purchased by the respondent himself. The appellant’s son demanded Rs.10,000/- and threatened to file a complaint for which the respondent refused on which the false case was filed. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the appellant for compensation and examined PWs.1 and 2 and RWs.1 to 3 during the enquiry, while marking Exs.A.1 to A.8 and Exs.B.1 to B.3. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly referring to the corroboration afforded by Ex.A.1-FIR and Ex.A.4-Charge sheet to the claims of the injured-PW.1 and further referred to the evidence of the respondent as RW.2 indicating that the appellant fell down due to the hit by the motorcycle of the respondent. The allegation that the respondent stopped the vehicle by the side of the road was considered improbable in the absence of any reason and the very conduct of the respondent in taking the appellant to the Nursing Home of Dr. U.V. Narasimha Reddy, was considered leading to the inference of his responsibility for the accident. Hence, the Tribunal firstly concluded that the respondent was responsible with his rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle for the accident. The Tribunal then analyzed the evidence relating to the injuries allegedly sustained by the appellant and found that the appellant would not have sustained a fracture injury and she appeared to have sustained only a simple injury resulting in severe pain and therefore, based on the norms fixed in precedents like Ankinapalli Yanadamma v. G. Sreenivasulu Reddy (1997(1) ALD 643), the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,000/- payable with interest at 9% p.a. and proportionate costs. The appellant complains in this appeal that having found the accident to have occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent, the Tribunal ought to have appreciated Exs.A.1 to A.8 in their proper perspective, which should not have been overridden for minor discrepancies. The appellant contended that she sustained fracture at the neck of femur on the left side as per the evidence of PW.2 and the evidence of PW.3 was unnecessarily given over emphasis by the Tribunal. The appellant, therefore, desired that the entire compensation as claimed by her be awarded. Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Varanasi Venkateswar, learned counsel, representing Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. Insofar as the finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the respondent for the accident due to his rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle is concerned, there was no challenge by the respondent by way of any cross-objections or cross-appeal and the said finding having become final, the liability of the respondent to justly and adequately compensate the appellant for the consequences of the accident cannot be in dispute. Hence, the only point for consideration is the quantum of compensation to which the appellant is entitled from the respondent. RW.1-Dr. U.V. Narasimha Reddy, stated that the appellant was brought to his clinic on 13-6-2002 during evening hours with a complaint of pain in the left leg and that an X-Ray taken did not reveal any fracture. He produced Ex.B.1-X-Ray and also stated that the appellant came to his clinic on foot though she had severe pain. He claimed to have mentioned that there are no fractures even in Ex.A.7-Prescription issued at that time and that there was nothing abnormal. The doctor denied the suggestion unless the X- ray was taken on his advice, the fracture sustained by the appellant could not have been detected. RW.1 was not alleged to be in any way interested in resorting to falsehood in favour of either party and in fact, the claim petition itself refers to the appellant being shifted to the Nursing Home of Dr. U.V. Narasimha Reddy-RW.1 immediately after the accident and an X-ray being taken there and the doctor advising her to take bed rest for 15 days. While the evidence of RW.1 thus improbablises the appellant suffering any fractures in the accident on 13-6-2002, PW.2 the other doctor examined on behalf of the claimant had seen the appellant much later on 10-7-2002 when she was admitted for a fracture of neck of the femur on the left side. It may be true that PW.2 conducted a surgery for such an injury on 12-7-2002 and it may also be true that PW.2 examined the appellant outside the Court on the date of his deposition also and found stiffness of knee joint and shortening of left leg resulting in limping. But, when the evidence of RW.1 was equally independent and when RW.1 did not find any fracture immediately after the accident, it would be difficult to connect the fracture of the appellant, which was treated by PW.2 to the accident in question. The evidence of PW.2 is very clear that the injuries were fresh when the appellant was admitted in the hospital and therefore, notwithstanding the evidence of PW.2 also being equally independent, the injuries spoken to by him are not possibly relatable to the accident in question. The petitioner/appellant as PW.1 of course reiterated her claims, but she admitted that she informed the police about the accident through her son only 15 days after the accident. She also admitted being treated by RW.1 immediately after the accident and being given some medicines and her further claims about the fracture and the treatment and the expenditure of Rs.25,000/- were not proximate to the time of accident as to be interpreted as the probable consequences of the accident in question. Though the appellant filed Ex.A.5-bunch of bills showing the expenditure for her treatment, as the alleged fracture is not connected with the accident in question by the evidence on record, the expenditure cannot be totally reimbursable. Though it is true that the respondent was acquitted in the criminal case as seen from Ex.B.2-copy of the judgment in C.C.No.671 of 2002, the same cannot be conclusive proof of the absence of involvement of the respondent in the incident as the standard of proof required for establishing the criminal liability beyond reasonable doubt cannot be taken as the standard of proof in appreciating the civil liability in this case, which has to be decided only on the broad human probabilities arising out of the evidence. The respondent admitted as RW.1 that he had taken the injured-appellant to the doctor and had also borne the expenses of medical examination of the patient and as rightly opined by the Tribunal, the same itself may probablise the connection between the accident and the respondent. Though the appellant, therefore, might not be entitled to a heavy compensation of Rs.1,31,000/- claimed by her in the absence of proof of sustaining any grievous injuries during the accident for which she was treated, the amount of Rs.2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is also on the lower side. The very evidence of PW.2 shows that immediately after the accident, it became necessary for the appellant being taken to a doctor for medical assistance and treatment and the evidence of RW.1 shows that though there was no fracture, the appellant was complaining of severe pain, which required immediate medication. The appellant was a lady aged about 53 years claiming to be living by doing agricultural labour and because of the accident and the injuries, she would have been undoubtedly disabled from carrying on her avocation and earning her income for a considerable period, which was not compensated by the Tribunal separately. Similarly, by the hit of the motorcycle and fall on the road, her clothing would have been undoubtedly damaged and she would also have required some money for her transport from the hospital of RW.1 to her home and for some days later for moving for attending to her necessities. Though there is no permanent or temporary disability, the pain and suffering, the loss of earnings, the expenses for transport, the damage to clothing, the necessary inevitable expenses for attendant, when she was immobile and the other heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages should have been more reasonably compensated by the Tribunal. Taking an overall view of the facts and circumstances, grant of a further compensation of Rs.5,000/- will be just and adequate compensation, in assessing which of course an element of guess and estimate are inevitable in the absence of any scientific guidance or evidence for exact assessment. Under the circumstances, the appeal has to be ordered to that extent. In the result, the award dated 12-1-2005 in O.P.No.579 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.5,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization or payment and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award. The appeal is allowed in part accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-12-2010 Ksn