IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTYFOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3460 of 2004 Between: Polepalli Narasimhaiah .. Appellant AND P. Ganimaiah and another .. Respondents ORDER: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award dated 20-01-2004 in M.V.O.P.No.463 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The factual background for the appeal is that the appellant and his son were going on a two wheeler on 12-04-2002 at 12.00 noon and near Bhagyanagar turning, auto AP-21-V-1766, driven rashly and negligently at high speed, hit the appellant. The appellant sustained multiple injuries all over his body and was treated at Government General Hospital, Kurnool, where he spent Rs.10,000/- for medical aid. At the age of 58 years, he lost his future earning capacity and hence, he sought for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The owner of the auto remained ex parte, while the insurer of the auto denied the allegations of claimant or the negligence of the auto driver or his having a valid and effective driving licence etc. Denying the liability to pay compensation, the 2nd respondent desired the claim to be dismissed, more so, due to the insurer of the TVS moped not being impleaded. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the appellant to compensation and during the enquiry, it examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7 and Ex.B.1. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly holding that the injured eye-witness account of PW.1 probablised, together with Ex.A.1-copy of the First Information Report, Ex.A.2-copy of the Charge Sheet and Ex.A.4-Judgment of the Criminal Court, that happening of the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto. Noting that the three injuries mentioned in Ex.A.3-wound certificate were not disputed by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurer, the Tribunal relied on the absence of production of X-ray film notwithstanding the evidence of the doctor, who treated PW.1, as PW.2 about the fractured nasal bone to conclude that the fracture cannot be accepted. While observing on one hand that no permanent disability was created and future earning capacity was no way effected as seen from the evidence of PW.2, still the Tribunal considered it fit to award Rs.12,500/- towards compensation for physical disability. It awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and only Rs.3,000/- towards medical, transport and other incidental charges though Ex.A.7-bunch of medical bills were to a tune of Rs.5,689-50ps. Future medical expenses were also disallowed on the ground of such a surgery being possible even in a Government General Hospital. Rs.1,000/- were awarded towards loss of earnings for a period of 19 days. The Tribunal, therefore, awarded compensation of Rs.26,500/- in total with interest at 9% per annum. The claimant challenged the said award in this appeal contending that in the absence of any evidence for the respondents except Ex.B.1-insurance policy and in the face of positive oral and documentary evidence for the claimant, the grievous injuries resulting in a permanent disability should have been compensated with the amount claimed. Sri J. Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bhaskara Rao Bandarupalli, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurer, are heard and none appeared before this Court on behalf of the 1st respondent-owner of the auto like before the Tribunal. The joint and several liability of both the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the claimant not being disputed by any appeal or cross-objections, the only question that remains is the quantum of just and adequate compensation to be paid to the claimant. Though the evidence of PW.1 about the medical expenses is corroborated by Ex.A.7-bunch of medical bills to a tune of Rs.5,689.50ps and the possibility of such expenses is probablised by Ex.A.5-Out Patient slips and Ex.A.6-prescriptions by the doctor and though the injuries suffered as per Ex.A.3-wound certificate were spoken to in detail by PW.2, the doctor, who treated PW.1, the medical expenses were disbelieved as PW.2 did not state about prescribing any medicines. PW.2 also did not state that he treated the patient without ever giving any medicine and the very nature of the injuries would require use of medicines for recovery of PW.1. On what basis Ex.A.6-prescriptions were considered unrelated to Ex.A.7-bills was also not stated and no amounts were granted towards transport charges, attendant charges, damage to clothing and TVS Moped in the accident and any other inevitable incidental expenses, though awarding damages under those heads should have been the natural consequence. The remedy provided by the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial remedy construed to be liberal and in favour of the victim and given the nature of the three grievous injuries and the consequential treatment, though the treatment was free in the Government General Hospital, the claimant can be considered to be entitled to further damages of at least Rs.4,000/- under these heads. Ex.A.3-wound certificate disclosed three grievous injuries and though the X-ray was not produced, the fracture of the nasal bone resulting in nasal obstruction and deviation of physical structure of the nose was spoken to by PW.2, whose evidence was not disbelieved. The three grievous injuries would have fetched a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering even under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and conventional sums awarded in a petition under Section 166 of the Act would have been more. Taking the over all impact of the accident on the appellant on the strength of the evidence on record into account, the compensation can be enhanced towards pain and suffering and any other miscellaneous heads by at least Rs.6,000/-. Thus, granting a further enhancement of the compensation by Rs.10,000/- will be reasonable and just, while the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal were not challenged by either respondent. In view of the length of the time for which the interest has to be paid on the enhanced compensation, the same can be confined to 6% per annum. In the result, the award dated 20-01-2004 in MVOP.No.463 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal by the impugned award. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-08-2011 Ksn