THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.3704 of 2002 JUDGMENT: The petitioner-claimant filed this appeal aggrieved by the award and decree dated 26-7-2002 in M.V.O.P. No. 857 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Kadapa whereby an amount of Rs.1,90,088/- was awarded as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.. 2. The petition averments are that on 12-11-1998 at about 09:00 p.m., the appellant-petitioner and two other officials of D.R.D.A. Kadapa were taking audit files in a jeep bearing No.APO2/E-6823 in order to go to Kurnool and thereafter to Hyderabad for obtaining signatures on audit files from DRDA Project Director at Kurnool and submit the same to the Rural Development Officer at Hyderabad. That when the jeep reached Sub-Station of Kanagaduru at about 10:30 p.m., a lorry bearing No. APO4/T- 0628 came from opposite direction at high speed driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed against the said jeep. As a result thereof, the appellant- petitioner suffered fracture and crushed injuries to his left shoulder causing its dislocation. That the driver of the jeep and the Deputy S.O. II died on the spot and that an Accountant also received fracture and crushed injuries in the said accident. That the front portion of jeep was also damaged. The appellant-petitioner was treated at Amar Hospital at Kadapa and Mallya Hospital at Bangalore. That an operation was done and steel rod was inserted in his left hand near shoulder. That he was also treated at Savithri Memorial Hospital, Kadapa. The Police, Duvvur registered a case in Crime No.119 of 1998 for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 304-A IPC. That he was on leave for one year and that he suffered total disability of his left hand. Hence he filed claim petition claiming a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and thereafter filed enhancement petition for Rs.5,00,000/- and the same was allowed. 3. R1 and R3 remained exparte, while R2 and R4 filed their counters denying the petition averments and allegations. 4. Basing on the pleadings, the trial court framed relevant issues for trial. 5. That the appellant-petitioner got himself examined as PW-1 besides examining the doctor, who treated him, as PW-2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. However, no witnesses were examined and no document was marked on behalf of the respondents except marking Ex.B-1. 6. Taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1 and other material on record, the Claims Tribunal answered the first issue that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing No.APO4/T-0628. 7. On issue No.2, the Claims Tribunal considering Ex.A2-wound certificate that the appellant-petitioner had suffered left shoulder fracture and dislocation and fracture of right elbow etc., and considering the evidence of medical witness- PW-2, who treated the appellant-petitioner and considering the estimated disability of 60% by PW-2 under Ex.A. 4 and also considering the medical bills to the tune of Rs.2,32,560-78 ps held that the appellant-petitioner is entitled to Rs.25,000/- each towards injury Nos.1 and 2 and Rs.10,000/- towards injury No.3 which is simple in nature. In addition thereto, the appellant- petitioner is also entitled to the medical expenses to a tune of Rs.1,10,788/- and also an amount of Rs.19,300/- towards transport charges. Thus, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,90,088/- fastening the liability to pay the said compensation on Respondent Nos.1 and 2 with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization. 8. It is the case of the appellant–claimant that he was admitted for treatment at Amar hospital at Kadapa on 13.11.1998 and he spent Rs.4,500/-; that thereafter he was admitted in Mallya hospital at Bangalore where he was treated from 14.11.1998 to 02.12.1998; that he spent Rs.2,23,000/- ;that subsequently he was also treated at Savithri Memorial hospital, Kadapa from 6.12.1998 to 12.12.1998 and that he spent Rs.2,000/- towards hospital charges, but the lower Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,10,788/- towards medical expenses. However, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Tribunal awarded the said amount by considering the fact that the appellant- claimant has admitted in his cross- examination that he did not file any prescriptions and that he did not even file the case sheet. Therefore, it had held that the appellant-claimant to be entitled to Rs.25,000/- each to injuries 1 and 2 and Rs.10,000/- towards injury No.3 and in addition thereto, the medical expenses actually incurred by him to the extent of the bills i.e. Rs.1,10,788/- was awarded. The appellant-claimant has stated that the lower Tribunal did not consider 60% disability under Ex.A.4 though the appellant-claimant had filed 25 medical bills to the tune of Rs.2,32,560-78 ps. It was not considered by the Tribunal having regard to the admission of PW.1 in his cross-examination that he did not file any prescriptions and even the case sheet. It is in these circumstances, the Tribunal has considered the injury Nos.1 and 2 to be grievous and injury No.3 to be simple in nature and in addition thereto it had awarded Rs.1,10,788/- to the extent supported by the medical bills as already been stated herein above. So far as the transport charges are concerned, it appears from the record that the Tribunal had awarded Rs.19,300/- having regard to Ex.A.6 transport receipts. The Tribunal cannot be found fault with since it had awarded the said amount basing on Ex.A.6. So far as not awarding the past earnings is concerned, it is to be found in the impugned order that the claimant did not file any certificate showing that he was working with D.R.D.A. at the time of the accident and that he admitted that lay off was declared in the sugar factory in the year 1995. It means that he was not working with D.R.D.A. but was an employee of sugar factory. 9. On the other hand, it is the case of the second respondent- insurance company that as per Ex.A.2- wound certificate, the appellant-claimant suffered three injures i) left shoulder fracture and dislocation ii) right elbow grade II compound outer condytar fracture and iii) scalp sutured. While referring to the evidence of PW.2- medical witness, it is stated that PW.2 also opined that injuries 1 and 2 only are grievous in nature. The insurance company further pointed to the evidence of PW.2 having stated that the patient was examined four years after the accident i.e. on 16.6.2002. (the accident occurred on 12.11.1998). That while issuing Ex.A.2, he only observed the tenderness over the right elbow and tenderness over left shoulder and further he admitted that it may not be caused by the accident because long time has passed away after the accident. That he also admitted in his cross-examination that he issued Ex.A4- disability certificate on the basis of Ex.A.2- wound certificate. Therefore, it is obvious that PW.2 is not a doctor who initially treated the appellant-claimant as per his own evidence and he is only observed the injuries present on the person of the appellant-claimant after four years and issued Ex.A.4 basing on Ex.A2-wound certificate. As such, it is the case of the insurance company that the Tribunal was justified in relying on Ex.A2- would certificate according to which the appellant-claimant suffered only two grievous injuries and one simple injury and as such, it did not apply or adopt the multiplier procedure. It is also stated that the Tribunal was justified in doing so since the case sheet was not filed though the appellant-claimant is stated to have undergone treatment at various hospitals. It is further stated that the Tribunal considered the medical bills to the extent they are supported by prescriptions. Lastly, it is stated that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and as such this appellate court may not interfere with. 10. The only grievance of the appellant-claimant appears to be that the Tribunal ought to have considered Ex.A.4- disability certificate. However, the Tribunal has given reasons for not accepting Ex.A.4 disability certificate. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that some reasonable amount may be awarded towards the disability and an amount of Rs.25,000/- appears to be just and reasonable to be awarded and the same is hereby awarded, thereby enhancing the total compensation from Rs.1,90,088/- to Rs.2,15,088/-(Rupees two lakhs fifteen thousand eighty eight ) only with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation. 11. With the above modification, the C.M.A. is disposed of. ​ ​_______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 09 -9-2010 Stp/ISL