IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A. No.2519 of 2001 Between: Late Malayala Venugopala Swamy and others .. Appellants AND Mr. D. Varalaxmi and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.17 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, dated 26-02-2001. Sri Malayala Venugopala Swamy was going on his motor cycle on 22-04-1997 towards Hyderabad from Toopran and at about 2.25 P.M., near Chinna Thokatta bridge, lorry No. ADT 9644, driven rashly and negligently in high speed, dashed his motor cycle from behind. Venugopala Swamy fell on the road and was dragged by the lorry for some distance resulting in fractures and grievous injuries. He was working in a Primary Agricultural Co- operative Society for a monthly salary of Rs.3,360/- and he claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the driver, the owner and the insurer of the lorry. Subsequent to the institution of the claim, Venugopala Swamy passed away and his wife, son, daughter and parents were brought on record as the legal representatives. The insurer alone contested the claim contending that the accident happened due to the rashness and negligence of the deceased himself and not due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry. The petitioners were put to strict proof of all their other allegations. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement to and quantum of the compensation. During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 and B.1 were marked. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of the eye witness-P.W.2, corroborated by the certified copies of the first information report and the charge- sheet, Exs.A.1 and A.2, for concluding that it was rash and negligent driving of the lorry that resulted in the accident. The 3rd respondent being the driver at the relevant time, the 1st respondent being the owner and the 2nd respondent being the insurer under a subsisting insurance policy were noted by the Tribunal to be admitted and hence, it was concluded that all the three respondents are jointly and severally liable to justly and adequately compensate the petitioners. The Tribunal observed that the deceased did not appear to have sustained any injuries on the vital parts of his person and no medical evidence was produced to show that his subsequent demise was in consequence to the injuries during the accident. The Tribunal, hence, did not attribute the death of the 1st petitioner to the accident, but taking into account the various injuries specified in Ex.A.3 wound certificate, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and assessing the disability at 20 per cent due to the injuries and applying a multiplier of 15 relevant to the age of 30 years of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed the loss of future income at Rs.1,08,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.9,000/- towards loss of past income prior to the petition, Rs.10,000/- towards medicines and treatment and Rs.3,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment, etc., and in total awarded a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum and proportionate costs. Petitioners 2 to 6 preferred the present appeal being aggrieved by non-grant of the entire compensation as claimed contending that the death of the deceased at the age of 30 years deprived the entire family of their livelihood and the Tribunal failed to apply appropriate multiplier and assess the compensation payable on the evidence on record. Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri K. Ashok Rama Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent insurer are heard. Respondents 1 and 3 are unrepresented before this Court. The point for consideration is what would be the just and adequate compensation to which petitioners 2 to 6 are entitled ? Point: The findings of the Tribunal about the lorry driver being the cause for the accident and the joint and several liability of all the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the petitioners, remained unchallenged and have become final, leaving open only the question of quantum of compensation to be determined herein. It is not in dispute that the deceased Venugopala Swamy was aged about 30 years by the time of the accident and was hale and healthy but for the accident and was employed with a monthly salary of Rs.3,360/- in a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society. His responsibility to maintain and look after his wife, son, daughter and parents also cannot be factually in dispute and even though the death of Venugopala Swamy soon after the accident was not proved to be the direct and proximate result of the injuries sustained during the accident, Ex.A.3 wound certificate shows his suffering a number of grievous injuries in the accident. Though no medical evidence was produced for corroboration of the injuries specified in Ex.A.3, as the contesting 2nd respondent admitted the factum of the accident while denying the responsibility of the lorry driver for the same and did not specifically deny the injuries said to have been sustained during the accident, the principle that admitted facts need not be proved may enable the petitioners to claim appropriate compensation even in the absence of definite medical evidence. The ten injuries described in Ex.A.3 required taking of seven X-rays as per the certificate obviously to confirm the presence or absence of any fractures at the relevant places due to the impact of the accident. Though no other documents are exhibited in the evidence regarding the further course of treatment, it is seen from the record that in fact, all those documents were filed before the Tribunal till the ultimate death of Venugopala Swamy and the medical bills themselves total to an expenditure of Rs.29,088-64 ps. As the genuineness of these documents is not in dispute, the same are referred to herein and the compensation has to be appropriately fixed keeping in view all the circumstances. If, out of the ten injuries sustained, there was possibility of about seven injuries being grievous, the compensation for pain and suffering even at the rate adopted by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act should be about Rs.35,000/-. In so far as the loss of past and future income is concerned including the period of hospitalization of Venugopala Swamy for three months, the Tribunal assessed the same with reference to the salary certificate Ex.A.6 produced by the petitioners and applying a multiplier of 15 taking the disability of the deceased at 20% due to the injuries. The same is not shown in any manner to be divorced from the facts and circumstances and as the medical bills themselves amounted to Rs.29,000/- and odd, the amount to be granted towards medicines and treatment can be reasonably assessed at Rs.30,000/-, which is the bare minimum in the absence of any clear evidence for the petitioners and without interfering with Rs.3,000/- granted towards transportation, extra nourishment and other miscellaneous expenses. So, on the material on record, the just and adequate compensation payable to petitioners 2 to 6 may come to Rs.1,85,000/- and therefore, there should be an enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by another Rs.40,000/-. Keeping in view the distance of time for which interest has to be paid on the enhanced portion of the compensation, the same can be fixed at 6 per cent per annum, of course, with proportionate costs on the enhanced sum also. Therefore, the award, dated 26-02-2001 in O.P. No.17 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment or deposit and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. No further directions need be given at this distance of time regarding disbursement of the compensation. The appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 04-08-2010 Svv