IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.4701 OF 2008 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad and another …Appellants A n d B.Karunakar ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.4701 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.04.2008 in O.P.No.1947 of 2002, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (I-Additional District Judge), Nizamabad, wherein the said claim application filed by respondent herein was allowed-in- part, awarding compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12.09.2002. According to the respondent, on that day, he was travelling in a jeep bearing No.MVV 9011 from Mora towards Nizamabad side and that near Mallaram Gandi forest, an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 3538, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the jeep, as a result of which the claimant sustained multiple injuries, including fracture of the back bone and right side vertebrae and that he was taken to Government Hospital, Nizamabad, where he underwent surgery for insertion of rods. 4. The appellants filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on behalf of the claimant. R.W.1 was examined on behalf of the appellants-APSRTC and no documents were marked on their side. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The said finding is not seriously challenged in this appeal. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,05,000/-. Aggrieved mainly by the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed. 7. As seen from the medical evidence of P.W.3, the doctor who issued wound certificate Ex.A-3, the claimant suffered three injuries, one grievous injury i.e., fracture of L2, L3 and L4 vertebrae on the right side and two simple injures i.e., lacerated wound over right elbow and an abrasion over the right elbow. The evidence on record also shows that the claimant was treated as inpatient at Government Hospital from 13.09.2002 to 15.09.2002. The claimant also filed Ex.A-4 disability certificate issued by Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Nizamabad, but the said Doctor who issued Ex.A-4 or the Chairman of the Medical Board is not examined to prove the contents of Ex.A-4. P.W.3, the Doctor who treated P.W.1 categorically admitted in his evidence that he has not issued the disability certificate Ex.A-4. He, however, stated that the claimant could have suffered disability to the extent of 20% as stated in Ex.A-4. 8. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for the three grievous injuries and Rs.4,000/- for two simple injuries. As per the evidence available on record, the claimant suffered only one grievous injury and two simple injuries for which he would be entitled for a sum of Rs.7,000/- (Rs.5,000/- + Rs.1,000/- + Rs.1,000/-) towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses which is considered reasonable, having regard to the nature of the injuries and also the fact that the claimant had undergone surgery for insertion of rods. The amount of Rs.4,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards attendant charges is also considered reasonable. The Tribunal awarded Rs.12,000/- towards loss of estate. Apparently, the said amount is granted towards loss of past income for a period of four months taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month from agricultural labour. The said amount is also considered to be just and reasonable. 9. After granting Rs.15,000/- and Rs.4,000/- for the grievous and simple injuries, the Tribunal, however, awarded a further amount of Rs.1 lakh towards pain and suffering. Awarding such a huge amount for pain and suffering in respect of one grievous injury and two simple injuries, is totally unwarranted, especially when the Tribunal has awarded separate amounts for the injuries sustained. The claimant is, therefore, held not entitled for the said amount of Rs.1 lakh. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards disability without, however, indicating the basis on which the said amount was arrived at. Though the question of estimating the loss of earning capacity on account of physical disability does not arise for the reason that the contents of Ex.A-4 disability certificate have not been proved, however, going by the evidence of P.W.3, the injuries suffered by the claimant would certainly result in physical disability as the claimant had suffered fracture of vertebrae. It is considered just and appropriate that the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is retained towards loss of amenities, if not towards loss of earning capacity. In fact, according to the claimant, he was doing cultivation and also cloth business but there is nothing on record to show that subsequent to the accident, he stopped either of them or that he sustained any loss of earning capacity. 10. In the circumstances, it is considered just and appropriate to award the said amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, considering the nature of the injuries which involved fracture of three vertebrae. The claimant is also held entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1 lakh with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed-in-part to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 04th November, 2011 Lrkm.