IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. NO.1451 OF 2005 Between: K.Madan Mohan Reddy .. Appellant AND T.Sai Ram & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. NO.1451 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.1123 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, dated 31.12.2003. 2. The factual background for the appeal is that the appellant along with others was travelling by jeep No.AP 22C 1779 on 29.04.1999 and at about 11.00 p.m., the jeep was driven rashly and negligently on National Highway Road No.7, near Ulindakonda and as the driver lost control, the jeep dashed against lorry No.AP 21T 3633, coming in the opposite direction resulting in injuries to the appellant, who was admitted in Government General Hospital, Kurnool, for a lacerated injury on the left frontal region, a lacerated injury over left temporal region and an injury on the pelvis region. He was later treated at Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, and Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, and due to the accident, the appellant claimed to have suffered a spinal problem resulting in discontinuance of his practice as an advocate and a permanent disability hampering him from doing his day-to-day work. The appellant, therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- stating that he was earning more than Rs.5,000/- per month from his profession, apart from sufficient income from his agricultural lands. He claimed to have spent Rs.25,000/- towards medicines. 3. While the owner of the jeep remained ex parte, the insurer of the jeep denied the claims of the appellant and contended that the jeep driver was no way responsible for the accident, as the lorry driver failed to take the necessary precautions. The lorry driver was rashly and negligently driving the lorry in a high speed and dashed against the jeep and the owner and insurer of the lorry are necessary parties to the claim. The insurer claimed ignorance about the possession of a valid driving licence for the jeep driver or the subsisting insurance for the jeep and requested for permission to take all the defences available to the insurer under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. On such pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-10 and Ex.B-1 during the enquiry. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly analyzing the evidence with reference to the responsibility for the accident and taking adverse note of the non-examination of the jeep driver and accepting the evidence of the injured P.W.1, corroborated by Ex.A-1-First Information Report and Ex.A-2-charge sheet, it concluded the jeep driver to be responsible for the accident, with his rash and negligent driving. 6. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal noted that Dr.S.Sanjeevi, who treated the injured immediately after the accident, noted three simple injuries in Ex.A-3-Wound Certificate, but P.W.2 deposed that on 23.12.2002, he examined the appellant, the details of which were specified in Exs.A-4 and A-5. P.W.2 claimed to have found the appellant to be suffering the disabilities of remote memory loss, slurred speech, difficulty in writing, tenderness in cervical and lumbar regions and abnormal gait, which is approximately 25% disability. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was not referred to any medical board for assessment of the permanent disability and P.W.2 examined the appellant after a gap of three years. The Tribunal also noted that initially, the appellant did not complain of the disabilities said to have been subsequently found and in that background, the Tribunal assessed the permanent disability of the appellant at 10% and accepted the claim of the appellant of earning more than Rs.5,000/- per month, assessed the loss of earning capacity at Rs.500/- per month. The loss of income was calculated for 46 months at Rs.23,000/- and the future loss of income was assessed at Rs.88,860/-, applying the multiplier of 14.81 for the age of the appellant at 35 years as per BHAGAVAN DAS Vs. MOHD. ARIF[1]. The medical bills to a tune of Rs.15,406/- filed by the appellant were also accepted and a total compensation of Rs.1,27,266/- was awarded. The said compensation was directed to be paid jointly and severally by the respondents with interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. 7. The appellant challenges the said award contending that the entire compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- as claimed should have been awarded as impairment of speech of the appellant practising as an advocate must have been considered as cent percent disability, for his occupation. The injury to the spine permanently disabled the appellant and calculating the disability only at 10% is arbitrary. Hence, the appellant desired that the impugned award be reversed. 8. Smt.Pingali Lakshmi, learned counsel for the appellant is heard. 9. In so far as the conclusion of the Tribunal about the responsibility of jeep driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving is concerned, the same was not challenged by either party and had become final. The ownership of the jeep with the first respondent and the valid and subsisting insurance for the jeep with the second respondent being not in dispute, the appellant is entitled to be justly and adequately compensated jointly and severally by both the respondents. 10. Therefore, the only question that is left for consideration in this appeal is the quantum of compensation to which the appellant is entitled. 11. The earliest version in Ex.A-1-First Information Report only stated about the appellant and others receiving bleeding injuries and the statement leading to the registration of the First Information Report was by another injured. Ex.A-2-charge sheet containing the result of independent investigation by the Statutory Investigating Agency stated about the injuries of the appellant being simple in nature as per the opinion of Dr.S.Sanjeevi, Chief Medical Officer, Government General Hospital, Kurnool, who treated him. Ex.A-3-Wound Certificate shows that injuries received were a lacerated wound on the left frontal region, a lacerated wound on the left temporal region and pain over pelvic region with no fractures on the skull and pelvis being found on x-ray and hence, the doctor opined the injuries to be simple in nature. 12. However, the appellant claims about adverse impact on the spine and consequential permanent disability with loss of memory, change in capacity of writing and inability to sit for a considerable time. His evidence was not specific about any impairment in speech and P.W.2 saw the appellant for the first time only on 23.12.2002, while the accident was on 29.04.1999. The claims of P.W.2 about the appellant consulting Neuro Surgeons and Orthopaedic Surgeons at Hyderabad, etc., were not corroborated by their evidence and impairment of remote memory, slurred speech, tenderness in cervical and lumbar regions and painful movements of neck, lumbar spine and straight leg noted by P.W.2, resulting in alleged disabilities of remote memory loss, slurred speech, difficulty in writing, abnormal gait and tenderness in cervical and lumbar regions, do not appear in the ordinary and natural course of circumstances to be capable of being linked with the three simple injuries found on the person of the appellant immediately after the accident. P.W.2 admitted that he did not treat the patient immediately after the accident and none of the doctors, who allegedly attended on him, or Dr.Sanjeevi, who immediately treated him after the accident, were examined to show that the simple injuries found immediately after the accident would have led to such consequences as claimed by P.W.2. P.W.3, the President of Gadwal Bar Association, also attempted to corroborate the claims of the appellant, but when Exs.A-1 to A-3 and Ex.A-10- case sheet do not probablise the linkage between the accident and the consequences claimed by P.W.2, the acceptance of 10% disability by the Tribunal based on the evidence of P.W.2 itself is a liberal view. 13. Whatever expenses are incurred, as seen from Ex.A-8- medical bills, were ordered to be reimbursed by the Tribunal and even Ex.A- 7-card from Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, dated 06.06.2000, only speaks about minor speech problem, difficulty in using the right limb and stiffening of back, but no major problem was disclosed by the diagnosis and tests and the advice was to have physiotherapy. In any view, if the physical problems of the appellant as disclosed by Exs.A-4, A-5 and A-7 and the evidence of P.W.2 were taken into account by the Tribunal in assessing the compensation and the income of the appellant from his profession of advocacy was accepted straight away as stated by him even without any corroborating documentary evidence for assessing the compensation, the disability assessed at 25% with reference to particular limbs or particular difficulties by P.W.2 being considered as 10% disability relating to the whole body cannot be considered to be an under assessment, more so, as the Tribunal had the advantage of physically observing the demeanour of P.W.1. Assessment of the actual loss of income for the period of disablement and treatment and the future loss of income with reference to the appropriate multiplier applicable to his age can be safely considered to cover the compensation to which he is entitled under all pecuniary and non- pecuniary heads, even if no such separate calculation was made and the appellant does not appear to be entitled to any enhancement of compensation when the Tribunal appeared to be already liberal towards him in accepting the evidence of P.W.2 for assessment of such compensation. 14. In the result, the appeal should fail and is, accordingly, dismissed without costs. ___________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 27th January, 2011 MR/KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. NO.1451 OF 2005 Date: 27th January, 2011 MR/KL [1] 1987 ACJ 1052 AP