IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A. No.2483 of 2003 and Cross Objections C.M.A. No.2483 of 2003: Between: The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Jyothinagar 505 218 of Ramagundam .. Appellant AND Chiluka Rajaiah alias Rajesham and others .. Respondents Cross Objections: Between: Chiluka Rajaiah @ Rajesham .. Cross Objector AND The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Jyothinagar Branch, Ramagundam and others .. Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT: The appeal and the cross-objections are directed against the award in O.P. No.19 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, dated 13-02-2003. The factual background is that the claimant was going on a LML Vespa, driven by the owner D. Badraiah, on 16-02-1999 at 4 P.M. and near 6 incline mine, Ramagundam, lorry No.AP 15T 5005, driven rashly and negligently, dashed against the scooter. The claimant had a fracture in the thigh and bleeding injuries all over the body and was treated at CDR hospital, Hyderebad where he underwent four surgeries, but was still left with permanent disablement. He had to undergo further surgeries at a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- as estimated by the hospital and hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry. While the driver and owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer denied all the allegations of the claimant including the vehicle being insured and the negligence of the lorry driver and the driving licence of the lorry driver. The claimant was put to strict proof and on such pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident, subsistence of valid insurance and entitlement of the claimant to compensation. During the enquiry, the Tribunal examined P.W.1 and C.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.16, C.1 and B.1. It rendered the impugned award firstly accepting Ex.A.1 first information report as corroborating the claims of the injured P.W.1 in proving the negligence in driving the lorry, which led to the accident. Ex.B.1 insurance policy filed by the insurer itself was opined to be proving subsisting insurance and in assessing the compensation, Exs.A.10 and A.3 consolidated medical bills were taken into account by the Tribunal to award Rs.2,00,000/- for medical treatment. Based on the evidence of C.W.1, the doctor, about the treatment of the claimant between 17-02-1999 and 04- 04-1999, the Tribunal found the claimant to have suffered fracture of pelvis, rupture of urethra, avulsion of skin over both thighs and lower abdomen. It resulted in the necessity to have skin grafting apart from other surgeries. The Tribunal, in consequence, granted Rs.30,000/- towards loss of studies due to disablement from movement, Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.81,600/- towards future loss of prospective earnings. In assessing the said future loss, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 17 and took the percentage of disability as 20% and the prospective capacity to earn at Rs.2,000/- per month in the light of the injured being a student of an Industrial Training Institute at the age of 23 years. The total compensation of Rs.3,47,000/- was directed to carry interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment and further directions were given about the disbursement of compensation. The insurer challenged the said award in the appeal contending that the involvement of the insured lorry was wrongly concluded and the percentage of disability was arrived at without any legally acceptable medical evidence. Discontinuance of studies could not have been separately compensated and interest could not have been given at 12 per cent per annum when the interest governed by the regulations of Reserve Bank of India was 7 per cent per annum at the relevant time. Hence, the insurer desired the award to be reversed. The claimant filed his cross-objections questioning the assessment of compensation by the Tribunal opining the same to be not in accordance with the well established principles of such assessment and to be in deviation from the evidence on record. The claimant claimed to be still disabled from engaging himself in any job and therefore, desired the entire compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as claimed to be granted. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the insurer and Sri A. Ravi Babu, learned counsel representing Sri D. Dharma Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant are heard. The insurer made a feeble attempt to question the conclusion about the involvement of the insured lorry in the accident. But it was fairly stated during the arguments that the evidence of the injured P.W.1 corroborated by the contents of the earliest version in Ex.A.1 first information report, the result of investigation by the statutory investigating agency in Ex.A.5 charge-sheet and the other circumstances arising from the proof of the injuries and treatment of the claimant were not contradicted by any positive evidence produced in proof of the defence or by any circumstances that can be deduced by necessary implication from the evidence on record. Hence, in view of the admitted subsistence of the insurance policy Ex.B.1 at the relevant time and in the absence of any dispute about the 1st respondent being the driver, the 2nd respondent being the owner and the 3rd respondent being the insurer of the vehicle, the joint and several liability of all the three respondents to justly and adequately compensate the claimant cannot be in doubt. The only question that remains in the appeal and the cross- objections is about the quantum of just and adequate compensation that should be granted. In so far as Exs.A.3 and A.10 medical bills are concerned, the Tribunal specifically referred to the details disclosed by Ex.A.16 case sheet of Medwin hospitals covering the period from 11-04-1999 to 26-06-1999 showing the conduct of several investigations and prescription of several medicines. Similarly, the Tribunal referred to not only the injuries disclosed by Exs.A.11 and A.12 photographs and negatives but also the positive evidence of C.W.1 about the treatment in CDR hospital between 17-02-1999 and 04-04-1999 for the grievous injuries received by the claimant, which also resulted in the claimant suffering from jaundice and high temperature during that period. Without replicating the description of the injuries all over again, the acceptance of Exs.A.10 and A.3, under the circumstances, cannot be considered improper. Apart from the said sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, the very nature of the injuries and confinement of P.W.1 to bed for not less than four months would justify grant of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of studies due to the physical disablement during that period. Though an attempt was made to project the grant of separate sums under these heads as a duplication, the contention has no force, as the conventionally awarded sums towards pain and suffering, if properly calculated for all the grievous injuries, probably would have been more than the total of the two sums put together. Concerning the grant of compensation towards loss of future earnings, it is true that the impugned award does not show any positive statements of C.W.1 about the percentage of disability. But the Tribunal obviously in its wisdom and experience considered the preparation of the claimant for his future career through an Industrial Training Institute and the physical requirements that such a career would have demanded. The Tribunal also obviously took into account the fact that notwithstanding the treatment, the fractured pelvis and ruptured urethra and other injured limbs would have still left a permanent physical deficiency in the total functioning of the body, which could be assessed at 20%. In the absence of any material to deviate from the assessment by the Tribunal, in the light of the seriousness of the injuries and the complexities that have arisen during the treatment, the calculation of future loss on the basis of such percentage of disability applying multiplier 17 for the age of 23 years cannot be considered incorrect. I f Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] were to be taken recourse to, the multiplier would have been, in fact, 18 and not 17. Therefore, it appears unjust and inequitable if quantum of compensation were to be interfered at this distance of time. It should also be noted that notwithstanding the complaints of the claimant about the inadequacy of the compensation, nothing positive had been shown to indulge in any enhancement of the compensation already awarded. That leaves us only with the question of future interest from the date of petition till the date of payment and the statement in the grounds of appeal that the then prevailing rate of interest as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India was only 7 per cent per annum, was not contradicted by production of any positive material nor was there any material before the Tribunal to know what was the prevailing rate of interest at the relevant time. Taking into account the different rates of interest adopted by the superior Courts since then till now, it would be an appropriate exercise of judicial discretion to restrict such interest to 7.5 per cent per annum since then till payment also taking into account of the fact that the insurer, a custodian of public funds, is burdened with payment of such interest for almost a decade or even more. Therefore, the award, dated 13-02-2003 in O.P. No.19 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar is modified by restricting the interest on the compensation of Rs.3,47,000/- to 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment and the impugned award is otherwise confirmed. The appeal and the cross-objections are ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 12-08-2011 Svv [1] 2009 ACJ 1298