THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2712 of 2003 %21.10.2010 # Peripogu Lakshaiah @ Latchaiah ...PETITIONER VERSUS $1. K.Ravinder and another ...RESPONDENTS < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: !Counsel for PETITIONER: Mr. Sricharan Telaprolu for Mr.T.S.R.Prasad ^Counsel for RESPONDENTS: None appeared ? Cases referred THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2712 of 2003 Date:21.10.2010 Between: Peripogu Lakshaiah @ Latchaiah ..... Appellant AND K.Ravinder and another .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Sricharan Telaprolu for Mr.T.S.R.Prasad Counsel for Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following Judgment: JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the award, dated 04.02.2003, in M.V.O.P.No.545 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The appellant, who sustained injuries in a motor accident, filed this appeal feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. As the manner of the accident and the factum of negligence are not in dispute, it is not necessary to refer to the facts leading to the accident. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the appellant was treated in Government Hospital for about two months and in a Private Nursing Home for about one month and has also suffered permanent partial disability to the extent of 25% to 30%. The plea of the appellant that he was doing cattle business, besides attending to coolie work, was also accepted and his income was taken as Rs.2,000/- per month. The appellant’s age was taken as 31 years and the Tribunal has assessed the loss of income at Rs.1,02,000/-. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- was awarded for extra nourishment, besides award of Rs.6,000/- towards loss of income during the period of hospitalization. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.6,000/- towards future operation and Rs.3,000/- towards medicines to be used in connection with such operation. Another sum of Rs.8,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering. In all, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,40,000/- as compensation. At the hearing, Sri T.Sricharan, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the age of the injured as 31 years on the basis of the age mentioned in the FIR and charge sheet, while the wound certificate and case sheet maintained by the hospital mentioned his age as 30 years. He has further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs.15,000/- as medical expenses instead of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by it. The learned counsel also submitted that the appellant was hospitalized for a period of three months in two spells and that he was discharged from the Private Nursing Home on 13.09.2000 with a further advise to undergo a further operation. According to the learned counsel, in view of the successive operations and his hospitalization in two hospitals with a further surgery to be performed, the appellant could not have attended to his day-to-day work at least for a period of six months and that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation for loss of income for six months instead of limiting it to three months. With reference to the first submission of the learned counsel, generally the age mentioned by the Doctors shall be preferred to the age mentioned in the police record. The Tribunal has referred to the discrepancy in the age mentioned in two certificates and presumed that the appellant’s age would have been 31 years. In my opinion, the Tribunal ought to have relied on the age mentioned in the wound certificate and case sheet. If the appellant’s age is taken as 30 years, the multiplier ‘18’ is applicable. I also find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that having regard to the intensity of the injuries and the period for which he was hospitalized, the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses even in the absence of documentary evidence. The fact that the appellant has suffered compound fractures of right leg bone requiring surgery and insertion of rods reveals the serious nature of injury requiring his hospitalization for three months in two spells. Therefore, it is reasonable to award Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses instead of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Coming to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards loss of income for the period six months, the material on record show that the appellant was initially admitted in Government Hospital following the accident on 30.03.2000 and was discharged on 29.05.2000. The appellant was again admitted in the hospital belonging to PW.2 on 11.08.2000 and was discharged on 13.09.2000. The fact that the appellant was re-admitted in the Private Hospital after his discharge from the Government Hospital is indicative of the discomfort he would have undergone on account of the injuries. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the appellant would not have been able to attend to his normal work at least until he was discharged from the Private Hospital on 13.09.2000. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to compensation towards loss of income for a period of six months against the period of three months adopted by the Tribunal. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified in the following terms – (1) The multiplier of ‘18’ is substituted for ‘17’, (2) A sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, (3) The loss of income is awarded for a period of six months as against the period of three months awarded by the Tribunal, (4) The rest of the award of the Tribunal is confirmed and (5) The appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of the petition till the date of realization. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.) Date: 21.10.2010 Note: LR Copy be marked (b/o) VGB