*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY +M.A.C.M.A. No. 433 of 2007 % 22-02-2010 # United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. By its Branch Manager, Branch Office At 5-2-17/2, Main Road, New Bus stand, Now rep. By Divisional Office-VI, Space No.106, Lenaine Estate, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad, Rep., by Deputy Manager. ….Appellant Vs. $ Thonti Kanakaiah and another. …. Respondents ! Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.A.Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.1: Mr.Ch.Pratap Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.2: --- <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.433 of 2007 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. By its Branch Manager, Branch Office At 5-2-17/2, Main Road, New Bus stand, Now rep. By Divisional Office-VI, Space No.106, Lenaine Estate, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad, Rep., by Deputy Manager. ..... Appellant AND 1.Thonti Kanakaiah and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.A.Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.1: Mr.Ch.Pratap Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.2: --- The Court made the following : Judgment: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) arises out of award, dated 16th November, 2006, in M.V.O.P.No.331 of 2005, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Medak at Sangareddy (for short ‘the Tribunal’). Respondent No.1-claimant is an agricultural labourer. On 19-12-2004, respondent No.1 boarded auto bearing No.AP 23 U 156, belonging to respondent No.2 and insured with the appellant-United Insurance Company Limited, at Chowdaram Village to go to Chinnakodur Village. When the said auto reached the outskirts of Chinnakodur Village, it turned turtle, resulting in causing injuries to its inmates including respondent No.1. Respondent No.1, therefore, filed M.V.O.P.No.331 of 2005, claiming Rs.1 lakh as compensation. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.92,000/- as total compensation under various heads viz., Rs.71,208/- towards loss of income for the alleged permanent disability taken at 20%, Rs.8,850/- towards hospital charges, Rs.3,636/- towards medical bills, Rs.5000/- towards extra nourishment & transport charges and Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony. At the hearing, Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant, advanced his contention disputing the award to the extent of the compensation of Rs.71,208/- towards loss of income for the alleged partial permanent disability suffered by respondent No.1. Sri Ch.Pratap Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, however, sought to defend the award. In support of the claim of respondent No.1, he examined P.W.2- doctor. Respondent No.1 also filed Ex.A.3- medical certificate and Ex.A.5- discharge summary. A perusal of Ex.A.3- medical certificate and Ex.A.5- discharge summary shows that the injury sustained by respondent No.1 was described as open fracture of left foot, 2, 3, 4 and 5 metatarsals. In Ex.A.5- discharge certificate, a similar description of nature of injury was made. Against the column ‘Treatment’, it was stated that wound debridement was done and respondent No.1 was advised not to bear weight and to get regular dressing done. However, for the first time, in his oral evidence, the doctor as PW.2 stated that the injury is grievous in nature and the patient suffered 25% disability. Admittedly, no separate certificate to the extent of permanent disability has been given by the doctor. I, therefore, find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the evidence on record does not prove that respondent No.1 has suffered partial permanent disability. From the nature of the injury, it is quite evident that he suffered fractures of four metatarsals of left foot, which require treatment as indicated in Ex.A.5. At the most it can be said that on account of the fracture, respondent No.1 would have been disabled from attending to his labour work for a period of 2 to 3 months. The Tribunal, therefore, ought to have confined the loss of earnings for a period of 3 months instead of awarding compensation by treating the injury as having caused partial permanent disability. Even if respondent No.1 is stated to have lost income for three months, the same would not have been more than Rs.10,000/- for that period. In addition to that, respondent No.1 may be entitled to appropriate compensation for the injury, he has suffered and the pain and suffering, he has undergone therefor. On an over all consideration, I am of the view that respondent No.1 is not entitled to claim more than Rs.35,000/- for suffering the injury. Adding all other sums viz., Rs.8,850/- towards hospital charges, Rs.3,636/- towards medical bills, Rs.5000/- towards extra nourishment & transport charges and Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony, as awarded by the Tribunal, the total compensation would come to Rs.55,485/-. The award of the tribunal is, accordingly, modified to the extent indicated above. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 22nd February, 2010 Note: LR copy to be marked. (B/o) lur