THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR MA CMA NO. 763 OF 2007 Date of order: 2.8.2010 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited …Appellant and Adepu Raj Kumar and another ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR MA CMA NO. 763 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company- respondent No.2 seeking to question the award of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-II-Addl. District Judge, Warangal in MV OP No. 281 of 2006, dated 11.12.2006. It is alleged that the claimant was aged 32 years and a businessman and on 19.8.2005 while he was traveling in an auto rickshaw from New Bus stand, Hanmakonda towards Kazipet and when the auto rickshaw reached new bus stand, Hanmakonda, the driver drove the auto rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, due to which the vehicle turned turtle and the claimant suffered multiple injuries and he was treated in Ganesh Orthopaedic hospital, Hanmakonda and the treatment given to the claimant was spoken to by P.W.2- Orthopaedic Surgeon. Police registered a case in Cr.No. 368 of 2005 against the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimant-first respondent filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,06,000/- for the injuries sustained by him under different heads including for 25% permanent disability. The insurance company-appellant denied the age, avocation and nature of injuries suffered by the claimant as well as negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. It also sought leave under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but no evidence was led by it except marking Ex.B1-insurance policy. On issue No.1 relating to rash and negligent driving, the same was held established by the Tribunal and on issue No.2, keeping in view the compound fractures of both bones of right leg, fractures of 8th and 9th ribs of the chest, laceration over right leg and abrasion over right knee, coupled with the medical evidence of P.W.2- Orthopaedic Surgeon, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.54,000/- towards pain and suffering as a result of grievous injuries, Rs.30,000/- towards 25% permanent disability, Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, extra nourishment and attendant charges and Rs.1,000/- towards transport charges, thus awarded a total compensation of Rs.95,000/-. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal ought not have separately awarded compensation under the head of pain and suffering and again under the head of permanent disability. The learned counsel also states that the evidence of P.W.2-Orthopaedic Surgeon, though speaks of 25% disability, Ex.X1-case sheet does not disclose any such disability. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent- claimant submits that the nature of the injuries as spoken to by P.W.2 being serious and grievous, the medical expenses incurred by the claimant has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal, but only a marginal amount was granted under that head. So far as the disability aspect is concerned, the learned counsel states that the evidence of P.W.2-Orthopaedic Surgeon carries sufficient weight and has to be accepted as authentic. The learned counsel also states that the compensation for pain and suffering for various grievous injuries was rightly granted by the Tribunal, apart from the compensation towards permanent disability and the award does not warrant any interference. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and also seen the record, particularly Ex.X1-case sheet and the evidence of P.W.2-Orthopaedic Surgeon. P.W.2 specifically stated in his chief and cross-examination that the claimant had suffered 25% disability. He also stated that the disability aspect would be known after examining the patient after the fracture is united. He had examined the patient six months after the operation and opined that the patient has 25% disability. He, therefore, explained that on the date of discharge the disability would not be known and therefore it would not be written in case sheet. After union of the fractures the disability, if any, will be assessed. He stated that the ribs would take about six weeks to unite, whereas the fractures of leg would take about five months. The aforesaid evidence of the doctor, therefore, remains unshattered in his cross-examination and there is no reason to ignore the said medical opinion that on account of the disability of 25% the claimant suffered from post traumatic and stiffness of knee joint. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in awarding compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards 25% permanent disability. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that separate compensation for disability and for pain and suffering cannot be awarded is also not correct, inasmuch as the compensation for pain and suffering is with reference to the grievous injuries suffered by the claimant, whereas the compensation towards permanent disability is with respect to the future earnings of the claimant which would be affected on account of disability. I, therefore, do not see any error in the award passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 2.8.2010 KR