IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO : 2690 of 1998 (Appeal under Section ____ against the order/decree in OP no. : 692 of 1994 dated 15/05/1998 on the file of the court of theI Additional District Judge, W.G. at Eluru) Between: D. Shivaji, S/o. Dhondi Ram ..... APPELLANT AND 1. Smt. M. Laxmi Devi, W/o. M. Satyanarayana 2. The Manager, United Insurance Company 3. Managing Director, KSRTC, Banglore .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.LAXMAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: MR.RAVI SHANKAR JANDHYALA The Court delivered the following JUDGEMENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 2690 of 1998 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal by the claimant, who suffered injuries on account of the accident dated 06.04.1993. The said accident occurred while the claimant was travelling in a bus belonging to the third respondent, when a tanker bearing No.AP31 T 4458 belonging to first respondent and insured with the second respondent, came and dashed against the bus at high speed resulting in injuries to ten passengers including the claimant. The police Kondapur, Medak District, registered Cr.No.13 of 1993 against the tanker driver. The claimant, who suffered serious injuries to his legs, had received treatment at the Government hospital Sangareddy, then at Gandhi hospital and later at private orthopedic hospital in the city. The claimant has filed the present claim in O.P.No.448 of 1993 claiming for compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-. The Tribunal below has found the issue as to rash and negligent driving against the offending vehicle and with regard to compensation the same is assessed at Rs.70,000/- and liability is fixed jointly and severally on respondent Nos.1 and 2, the owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company respectively. To the extent of disallowed claim the present appeal is filed by the claimant. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the evidence on record clearly shows that the claimant was admitted to three different hospitals and ultimately, at last, in private orthopedic hospital of PW.2, and he had to be operated by inserting a steel rod above the knee portion of his right leg. The evidence of the medical bills, during his medical treatment, of all three hospitals is partly exhibited under Exs.A16 – A-32. Apart from that Exs.A40 – A44 are the various prescriptions and Exs.A35 to A38 are diagnostic reports and Ex.A39 is OPD patient record while he was at the Government hospital. Exs.A10 to A15 are the discharge card with bills of the private orthopedic hospital. It is not in dispute that the claimant was aged 35 years and he is a businessman earning Rs.2,000/- per month. The treating doctors were examined as PWs.2 and 3, both of whom are specialist doctors in orthopedic surgery and apart from confirming that they have treated the claimant for the fracture of his thigh bone, including the surgery thereon, have certified the disability. While PW.2 estimated the disability at 40% and PW.3 at 60%, the disability certificate of the respective doctors is also noted as Ex.A8. 4. The evidence on record, therefore, clearly establishes that on account of the said accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant he has to now permanently walk with the support of crutches. The disability suffered by the claimant, therefore, has to be assessed between 40% as estimated by PW.2 and 60% as estimated by PW.3. In any case, the said disability can be taken to be more than 50%. Keeping in view the further fact that the claimant was treated at three different hospitals including the last private hospital specialized in orthopedic treatment and the number of prescriptions and medical bills exhibited and the fact that the surgery was performed on his right leg at Uday clinic, clearly supports his claim of Rs.1,60,000/- towards compensation. In fact, keeping in view these documents on record, the fees on the medical treatment alone he must have spent the amount as claimed. 5. The order of the Tribunal below awarding compensation of Rs.70,000/- as against the claim of Rs.1,60,000/-, therefore, appears to be much on a lower side and is conservative. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed as prayed for. The award of the Tribunal below granting compensation of Rs.70,000/- shall stand modified and the claim of the appellant shall stand allowed as prayed for. However, the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till realization and the decree shall be joint and several on respondents Nos.1 and 2 as held by the Tribunal below. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 07.08.2009 MD