IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1956 of 2002 and Cross Objections C.M.A. No.1956 of 2002: Between: Mohd. Hafeezuddin .. Appellant AND Anwar Badupir Shaik and another .. Respondents Cross Objections: Between: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Begumpet, Hyderabad .. Appellant AND Mohd. Hafeezuddin and another .. Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT: The appeal and the cross-objections are directed against the award, dated 02-11-2011 in O.P. No.1253 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Rangareddy. The factual background for the appeal is that on 01-12-1998 at about 3 A.M. jeep No. ADY 6056 was dashed against by lorry No.MH 13B 592 due to the rash and negligent driving in high speed of the lorry. One person died in the accident, while the claimant herein sustained simple and grievous injuries and claimed to have suffered a permanent disability. Crime No.736 of 1998 was registered by Kukatpally police and the injured claimant sought for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- claiming to be earning Rs.1,800/- per month as a lorry cleaner at the age of 23 years. The owner and insurer of the lorry were sought to be made liable jointly and severally. While the owner of the lorry did not contest the claim, the insurer put the claimant to strict proof of all the allegations and the valid driving licence of the lorry driver, valid permit of the lorry, road worthiness of the lorry also have to be proved. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident, the claimant suffering any permanent disability, the subsisting insurance of the vehicle and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation. O.P. No.1253 of 1998 was tried along with the claim made by the dependents of the deceased in the same accident in O.P. No.1248 of 1998. The Tribunal examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.11 and B.1 during the joint enquiry. The Tribunal rendered a common order in both the claims firstly concluding that the driver of the lorry was guilty of causing the accident with his rash and negligent driving and not the driver of the jeep. The Tribunal also concluded that in view of the subsisting insurance policy for the lorry, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to justly and adequately compensate the claimants. The Tribunal further considered the quantum of compensation with reference to the evidence of the injured as P.W.3 and the doctor as P.W.4 corroborated by Exs.A.9 to A.11. The Tribunal opined that grant of Rs.10,000/- for grievous injury as seen from Ex.A.9 discharge summary, Rs.40,100/- towards medical expenses as disclosed by Ex.A.10 bills, Rs.2,700/- towards of loss of earnings for one and half months, Rs.10,800/- towards loss of earnings for another six months, Rs.4,500/- towards extra nourishment, transport, attendant charges, etc., making a total of Rs.68,100/- is just and adequate. The alleged permanent disability was considered to be not disclosed by Ex.A.11 photograph up to waist or from the claims of P.W.4 about partial disability of 5% to 10% in respect of sexual aspect. The Tribunal was dissatisfied with the evidence in this regard and did not accept that P.W.3 was unfit for marriage. The Tribunal awarded interest at 12 per cent per annum and proportionate costs and the compensation was made payable by both the respondents jointly and severally. Advocate’s fee was fixed at Rs.1,500/-. The claimant preferred this appeal contending the compensation awarded to be too low in spite of positive evidence on record and claimed that the doctor clearly stated in his evidence as P.W.4 that the appellant cannot do rigorous work or sustain any pain while doing work. The appellant was also stated to have suffered sexual incapacity and hence, the claimant desired the balance compensation of Rs.1,31,900/- also to be granted. The insurer filed cross-objections contending that the monthly income, attendant charges and loss of working days were fixed without any evidence and the award is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Sri Venkateswar Varanasi, learned counsel representing Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the claimant and Sri Hari Babu Manne, learned standing counsel for the insurer are heard and the owner of the vehicle did not enter appearance before this Court. The finding of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving by the lorry driver being the cause for the accident was not challenged by either party and the ownership of the vehicle with the 1st respondent and its subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent are also not in dispute. The joint and several liability of both the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the injured claimant, hence, is not in question. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the injured claimant as P.W.3 stated about earning Rs.1,800/- per month as a lorry cleaner and he claimed to be aged 23 years by the time of the accident. P.W.3 claimed to have sustained injuries on the arm, left leg and other parts of the body, for which he underwent a surgery, but he admitted that he did not file any medical certificate to show that he was unfit for marriage. He also admitted not filing any document to show his salary. P.W.4, the doctor, who performed the abdominal surgery on P.W.3, stated about receiving Rs.40,100/- towards medical expenses and P.W.3 suffering inability to do rigorous work and risk of pain due to the consequences of the injuries and stated such disability to cover the sexual aspect also. While Exs.A.10 and A.11 and the evidence of P.W.4 may suggest a rupture of spleen, for which P.W.3 was treated, the alleged disability of 5% to 10% was stated vaguely and indefinitely by P.W.4 and the avocation of P.W.3 as lorry cleaner was no way prejudiced by the consequences of the injuries suffered. The Tribunal, therefore, refused to quantify any damages for the alleged permanent disability, which cannot be considered to be unreasonable or unjust and the Tribunal awarded whatever expenses were incurred as per Ex.A.10 and the assessment of the monthly income of P.W.3 as a lorry cleaner at Rs.1,800/- per month is not shown to be in any way less or more than the minimum wages payable to a lorry cleaner at the relevant time. The period of hospitalization was with reference to the medical evidence and the probable period of disability from practising the profession was with reference to the advice by P.W.4 to P.W.3 to take bed rest for six months. The grant of compensation under the head ‘loss of income’ is, thus, not without any basis and the grant of Rs.100/- per day for 45 days hospitalization towards attendant charges, extra nourishment, transport and all other miscellaneous expenses also cannot be considered high. While the refusal of the Tribunal to grant any compensation for any permanent disability is not divorced from the probabilities arising out of the evidence on record, the grant of damages under various heads including a sum of Rs.10,000/- for grievous injury, does not appear to be either overestimated or underestimated. The injury not being shown to have not healed completely could not have been presumed to have still left any disability to be compensated or any pain and suffering which has to be still compensated. The rate of interest of 12 per cent per annum granted by the Tribunal was also a matter of complaint by the insurer. But given the passage of time and the decrease in the value of rupee over the years, which can be taken judicial notice of, any deduction in grant of interest will deprive the claimant of the compensation in terms of its real value. It was not shown to be significantly deviant from the then prevailing rates of interest and hence, need not be interfered with at this distance of time. Under the circumstances, both the appeal and the cross- objections have to fail and they are dismissed accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10-02-2011 Svv