HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.2603 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award passed in O.P.1010 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Nalgonda, dated 27.01.2003, in pursuance of the common order made in O.P.Nos.973 and 1010 of 1999. The appellant herein and one Edulla Sanjeeva Reddy were returning on the motor cycle of the appellant on 13.06.1999 at about 5.30 P.M. and in the outskirts of Choutuppal village, Maruti Car No.AP-28L- 777, driven in high speed rashly and negligently, dashed against them resulting in the appellant and another suffering simple and grievous injuries causing a permanent disability. The car owned by the 1st respondent was insured with the 2nd respondent and hence the appellant claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from both the respondents. While the owner of the car remained ex parte, the insurer contested the claim contending that the claimant was put to strict proof of all the allegations and further contending that the driver of the car had no valid driving licence and the car was not roadworthy. It claimed absence of responsibility due to violation of the essential terms of the insurance policy. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident, the ownership and insurance of the Maruti car and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation. During the joint trial of both the claims, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.17 and B.1 were marked. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 corroborated by Ex.A.1 First Information Report, Ex.A.2 charge sheet and Ex.A.8 order in S.T.C.No.27 of 1999 convicting the driver of the Maruti car on admission. The accident was hence considered to be due to the fault of the driver of the Maruti car. Ex.B.1 copy of the cover note for the insurance policy was taken as the basis for concluding the ownership of the car to be with the 1st respondent and its subsisting valid insurance with the 2nd respondent. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal referred to the evidence of PW.2 about suffering fractures in the right leg at four places and being treated at Kamineni hospital by spending about Rs.50,000/-, but still being left with the disability as certified in Ex.A.17 by the District Medical Board. The permanent disability was assessed at 25% and the Tribunal assessed the same with reference to the whole body at 10%. It granted Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities of life and Rs.25,000/- only towards medical expenses, extra nourishment, transportation charges etc., as PW.2 did not examine any official of Kamineni hospital to prove Ex.A.12 medical bills to a tune of Rs.1,17,320.40ps. Taking the age of the claimant as 27 years and referring to his claim of earning Rs.3,500/- per month from business, the Tribunal noted that the claimant did not explain what was his business and there was no evidence about his income, due to which it has to be fixed at Rs.1,000/- per month. Assuming that the claimant could not have worked for about six months, the Tribunal granted Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings. Towards loss of future earnings, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of ‘18’ with reference to the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and arrived at the total loss of earnings at Rs.2,16,000/-, if it was cent percent, and considered that grant of Rs.21,600/- towards the same will be reasonable. On the total compensation of Rs.72,600/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. and proportionate costs. The claimant challenged the said award in this appeal contending that medical expenses should have been granted in full as shown by Exs.A.12 and A.14 and income of the injured was Rs.10,000/- per month from business. No compensation was awarded towards pain and suffering and interest ought to have been given at 12% p.a. Hence, the claimant requested that the balance of Rs.2,27,400/- claimed by him also be awarded. Heard Sri M.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N.V.Jagannath, learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer. None appeared for the owner of the Maruti car before this Court. The conclusions of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident being with the driver of the car with his rash and negligent driving and the ownership of the Maruti car with the 1st respondent and its valid and subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent were not the subject of challenge by any party and they have become final. C.M.A.No.2062 of 2003 filed against the award in O.P.No.973 of 1999 covered by the same common order was allowed in part without costs by the judgment dated 18.11.2010. The only point that is left for consideration in this case also is about the just and adequate compensation to which the claimant is entitled? The earliest version in Ex.A.1 First Information Report itself mentioned about the legs of the claimant and another being fractured in the accident. Ex.A.2 charge sheet prosecuted the car driver for an offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code obviously due to causing grievous hurt to both the injured. The fracture of the legs of the injured was also specified in the charge sheet. Ex.A.8 shows that the accused driver was convicted on admission for the said and other offences. Ex.A.9 is the medico legal certificate and Ex.A.10 is the discharge summary issued by Kamineni hospitals. Ex.A.10 shows in detail the manner of treatment given to the claimant between 13.06.1999 and 24.07.1999 with two surgeries in between, for treatment to the fractures suffered in the accident. Ex.A.11 shows that again on 08.02.2002 the implants from the body of the claimant were removed by a hospital at Narketpally. It is also seen from Ex.A.12 bunch of medical bills issued by Kamineni hospitals that a total expense of Rs.1,17,320.40ps. was incurred by PW.2 for his treatment. PW.2 was suggested during cross-examination by the insurer that he sustained only simple injuries and did not spend any money for treatment. But, none of the documents produced by PW.2 were specifically questioned. Though PW.2 stated that he spent only Rs.50,000/- towards treatment, the same can be understood with reference to the amount spent apart from the charges for surgeries etc. At any rate, in the claim petition, it was clearly stated that Rs.1,20,000/- have to be granted towards treatment, medical expenditure, transport charges and loss of income till recovery, obviously showing that this statement about spending only Rs.50,000/- is a lapse and for an innocent lapse, expenditure proved through bills issued by a reputed hospital need not be discredited, when there is no reason to doubt their genuineness or authenticity. The nature of the injuries and the course of treatment could also suggest the probability and justifiability of such expenditure. Though it is true that the claimant did not examine any official relating to the hospital, when the truth or dependability of Exs.A.9 to A.13 were not subjected to any cross-examination, they could not have been rejected straight away. Ex.A.17 disability certificate states the disability with reference to the injured limb to be 25% and the Tribunal which accepted the disability also had the benefit of physically observing the claimant. Therefore, the actual medical expenses of Rs.1,17,320/- should have been directed to be reimbursed and the Tribunal awarded only Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses and other related heads of damages, leaving a deficit of Rs.92,320/- towards the expenses alone. The claimant also would have necessarily incurred inevitable expenditure towards the extra nourishment, expenses of attendant, transportation charges etc., as seen from the very nature of treatment given in detail in the documents filed. For proving the payments made to the hospital, the doctors or officials of the hospital need not have been examined, in the absence of any denial in the cross-examination and hence the compensation to be awarded under all these heads in addition to the compensation already awarded can be rounded off to Rs.1,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- each towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.1,000/- per month, in the absence of any documentary evidence to show his income. The claimant as PW.2 did not state anything about his occupation and income and in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal taking his monthly income at Rs.1,000/- may not be totally unjustified, but when the claimant aged about 32 years was able-bodied, he would have engaged himself in some avocation and he claimed to be doing financial business. Even if the notional income adopted by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in respect of non- earning persons at Rs.15,000/- per annum were to be taken as the basis, he can be reasonably considered to be earning not less than Rs.1,500/- per month and for his age of 32 years by the time of award and 29 years by the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier would be ‘17’. If there was total loss of earnings it can be quantified at Rs.2,55,000/-. The Tribunal justly assessed the disability with reference to the functioning of the whole body at 10% with reference to 25% disability relating to the injured limb and if so, the claimant will be entitled to about Rs.25,500/- under this head and the difference of about Rs.4,000/- also should be therefore awarded. The loss of earnings for about six months as assessed by the Tribunal should also be enhanced by about Rs.3,000/- for the same reason. Accordingly, enhancing the compensation by Rs.1,07,000/- may be granting just and adequate compensation to the appellant under the circumstances. In view of the distance of time for which the insurer has to pay interest on the enhanced portion of the compensation, it can be limited to 6% per annum, while of course, proportionate costs shall follow suit. In the result, the award in O.P.1010 of 1999 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Nalgonda, dated 27.01.2003, is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.1,07,000/- with interest at 6% per annum thereon from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal by the impugned award. The appeal is allowed, accordingly, in part, without costs. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 7th February, 2011. PNV