IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1411 of 2003 Between: Thuta Madhu .. Appellant AND Minasa Satyanarayana and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P. No.264 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada, dated 28-10-2002. The appellant working as a constable in Andhra Pradesh Fire Service Department was proceeding in taxi No.DIC 606 on 11-01-1999 at 4.30 A.M. and near Samalkot-Kakinada road junction, the 1st respondent drove the taxi in high speed rashly and negligently, on which it fell into the canal causing injuries to the appellant all over his body. The appellant, shifted to Government General hospital, Kakinada, underwent treatment for two months as in-patient and for three months as outpatient. Samalkot police registered crime No.6 of 1999 and hence, the appellant claimed a compensation of Rs.75,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the taxi. The driver and owner of the vehicle remained ex parte, while the insurer denied the claim and also claimed the claim to be excessive. The Tribunal framed issues about the manner of the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 and B.1 during the course of enquiry. It rendered the impugned award accepting the evidence of P.W.1 corroborated by Ex.A.1 first information report as proving the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent to be the cause for the accident. The Tribunal considered that the appellant was forced to go on leave for one and half months and his salary being Rs.4,000/- per month, the claimant was entitled for loss of leave salary to a tune of Rs.6,000/-. While no disability was alleged or proved, for the fracture of four ribs and three simple injuries suffered by the claimant, the Tribunal granted Rs.7,000/- and it also directed reimbursement of Rs.3,141/- towards medical expenses probablised by Ex.A.3 bunch of medical bills. The total compensation of Rs.16,141/- was directed to carry interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. The claimant complained in this appeal that the compensation awarded for pain and suffering and for loss of pay was grossly inadequate and the entire compensation claimed should have been granted. Heard Sri Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned counsel representing Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Srinivas Rao Vutla, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent insurer. The driver and owner of the vehicle remained unrepresented before this Court also. The conclusion of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent alone being the cause for the accident is not challenged by any party and the ownership of the vehicle with the 2nd respondent, its subsisting insurance at the relevant time with the 3rd respondent and the 1st respondent being the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident were not disputed. The joint and several liability of all the three respondents to justly and adequately compensate the injured is, thus, not in doubt. Coming to the quantum of compensation, there were fractures of 2nd to 5th ribs apart from three simple injuries on the person of P.W.1 due to the accident. The wound certificate Ex.A.2 and the evidence of P.W.2, the doctor, prove the same and even the scale adopted by the Second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes grant of Rs.5,000/- for each grievous injury and Rs.1,000/- for each simple injury towards pain and suffering. If so, the claimant should have been granted a minimum of Rs.23,000/- under that head instead of Rs.7,000/- only granted by the Tribunal. The evidence, of course, does not disclose any temporary or permanent disability for the claimant, but the very nature of the injuries would suggest that the appellant would have been disabled from attending to his job for not less than 2 to 3 months. The Tribunal compensated him for loss of salary only for one month fifteen days and it is but just and proper to further compensate him under that head for about a month more i.e. by Rs.4,000/-. While the Tribunal awarded the actual medical expenses proved by Ex.A.3, it did not award any compensation towards the attendant charges, extra nourishment, transport, damage to clothing and other inevitable miscellaneous expenses during the period of hospitalization and disablement. Granting a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards all such pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages will be answering the need for a reasonable compensation and therefore, the compensation already awarded should be enhanced by Rs.25,000/-. In view of the length of time for which interest has to be paid on the enhanced compensation, the same can be restricted to 6 per cent per annum, while proportionate costs, of course, shall follow suit. Accordingly, the award, dated 28-10-2002 in M.V.O.P. No.264 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award and the appeal is allowed in part accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 17-03-2011 Svv