IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2676 of 2003 Between: National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Khammam. .. Appellant AND Gaddam Ratna Sunil and 2 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 24-01-2003 in O.P.No.715 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Khammam. The 1st respondent herein was returning on his motorcycle from duty on 28-04-2001 when jeep No.AP-7-T-6950, driven rashly and negligently at high speed, dashed the motorcycle near the Junior College, Paloncha. The 1st respondent herein sustained grievous injuries and police of Paloncha registered Crime No.45 of 2001 against the jeep driver. Though the 1st respondent was immediately shifted to the hospital of Dr. Ch. Krishna Prasad, Kothagudem and then to Government Hospital, Polancha and then to NIMS where he underwent surgery, he was still left with a disadvantage. The 1st respondent sustained fracture of left jaw, fracture of left mandible, crush injury and fracture of bones around right eye and fracture of bone below right eye. He had to incur an expenditure of Rs.90,000/- towards medical expenses, and hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the jeep. While the driver and owner of the jeep remained ex parte, the insurer contested the claim denying the averments of the claimant and contending that the driver had no valid driving licence and that the claim was excessive. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.13 and B.1 during enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly accepting the evidence of the injured-PW.1 corroborated by the contents of Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2-charge sheet to conclude that the rash and negligent driving of the jeep resulted in the accident and the injuries. In assessing the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal referred to the oral and documentary evidence and considered under the circumstances that it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards general and special damages including medical expenses in view of the nature of the fractures, surgery, treatment and personal disability. As the insurance policy was subsisting as seen from Ex.B.1, the Tribunal considered all the three respondents to be jointly and severally liable to pay such compensation with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The insurer preferred the appeal against the said award contending that without any evidence on record, a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- was awarded and there was not even a disability certificate or medical bills produced in support of the claim. The Tribunal could have awarded compensation only towards pain and suffering and the compensation awarded is excessive. The accident left no permanent disability causing any disadvantage to the claimant in attending to his normal duties, and therefore, the insurer desired the impugned award to be reversed. Sri P. Phalguna Rao, learned standing counsel for the appellant-insurer is heard and though the 1st respondent is represented by a learned counsel, none appeared during the hearing of the appeal and the respondents 2 and 3, the driver and owner of the jeep, remained unrepresented before this Court also. The insurer did not challenge the conclusion of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the jeep driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving and the subsistence of Ex.B.1- insurance policy at the relevant time. The driver, owner and insurer of the jeep, therefore, are undoubtedly liable to justly and adequately compensate the injured claimant and it is only the quantum of such compensation that is the subject of determination in this appeal. The only witness examined was the injured-PW.1 himself and the doctors, who treated PW.1, were not brought to the witness box. PW.1 in his evidence stated about his drawing a monthly salary of Rs.5,300/- as a Junior Plant Attendant at KTPS, Paloncha. He claimed to have received fractures of mandible and left jaw, crush injury and fracture of bones around the right eye and injuries on the face and chin. He claimed to have suffered loss of teeth and injuries on both hands and legs. He claimed to have undergone a surgery on 01-05-2001 at NIMS, Hyderabad where plates were fixed and clips, screws and wiring were also inserted in the body. He claimed to have been advised to attend the hospital once in a week for follow up treatment and there was disfiguration of his face after the treatment. He claimed to be suffering a disability in consuming hot food and during his cross- examination the claims of PW.1 about the injuries received by him and treatment he had undergone were not questioned though he admitted that he did not file any disability certificate issued by any medical officer. On the strength of his evidence, it is thus clear that Ex.A.3- Medical Certificate specifies two grievous injuries to have been suffered by the injured-PW.1, while Ex.A.7-Discharge card shows that grievous injuries must have been suffered in the left mandible, maxilla, right maxilla, nasal bone and other areas of the face requiring insertion of screws, plates etc., bone grafting and application of plaster of paris. The Tribunal also noted disfiguration in the face of the injured-PW.1 due to a big scar below the right eye. Though he could produce a medical bill only for Rs.100/- as against his claim of spending Rs.90,000/-, the grievousness of the injuries received and the suffering he must have undergone during the course of tortious treatment for a considerable time are matters evident from the oral evidence corroborated by the documents on record. The genuineness of Exs.A.3 to A.9, A.12 and A.13 cannot be and were not disputed and under the circumstances, such factors should form the basis for arriving at an appropriate compensation to be awarded. It is true that the Tribunal straight away granted a lump sum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation without elaborating the heads of damages being granted and therefore, it becomes necessary to analyze the various heads of damages to which the injured- claimant may be entitled. In respect of four grievous injuries, which appeared to have been suffered by the claimant and in respect of which surgeries performed at NIMS, the pain and suffering ought to be compensated with at least Rs.15,000/- each or Rs.60,000/- in total and the disfiguration of the face, though not resulting in permanent disability partial or total, should also be compensated by a further sum of Rs.10,000/-. The expenses for transport, attendant charges, miscellaneous expenses during the period of hospitalization even if the treatment at NIMS was free and other inevitable expenses including purchase of any medicines not given by the hospital can be reasonably estimated to cost another Rs.10,000/-. The loss of salary for about two months may also have to be granted as the grave injuries and consequential surgery could not have enabled PW.1 to resume his duties at any earlier date. Such loss of salary may be assessed to be another Rs.10,000/-. Towards other heads of general or special damages to which the claimant may be entitled a further sum of Rs.10,000/- could have been awarded and the total compensation reasonably estimated could have been limited to Rs.1,00,000/-. Interest at 9% p.a. granted by the Tribunal was not shown to be deviant from the interest adopted by the Scheduled Banks at about the relevant time and on the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, such interest can be awarded from the date of petition till realization. As the lump sum amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal under the impugned award is not shown to be justified by the oral and documentary evidence on record and as a reasonable estimate disclosed such entitlement of the injured-PW.1 to be for about Rs.1,00,000/-, the award has to be modified accordingly. Therefore, the award dated 24-01-2003 in O.P.No.715 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Khammam, is modified by restricting the compensation payable to the claimant-petitioner by the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally to Rs.1,00,000/- with interest thereon at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 15-09-2011 Ksn