IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2261 of 2003 Between: M. Vijayamma .. Appellant AND Jannapureddi Venkat Reddy & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2261 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award, dated 31.03.2003, in M.V.O.P.No.1175 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Warangal. 2. The appellant was travelling in the bus of the second respondent driven by the first respondent on 31.07.1997 at about 10.00 a.m. and due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, it hit a tractor-trailer No.AP 15T 8603 and 8604 and due to the impact, the appellant sustained serious injuries. At the age of 45 years, she was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a vegetable vendor and she claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and its driver jointly and severally. 3. The corporation contested the claim contending that when the bus was being driven slowly and cautiously, the tractor- trailer coming in the opposite direction, being driven rashly and negligently in high speed without headlights, dashed against the bus and the tractor-trailer driver was responsible for the accident. The alleged injuries and treatment claimed by the appellant are denied. The corporation, therefore, desired the claim to be negatived. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant for compensation and examined P.W.1 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A- 1 to A-6 during the enquiry. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly concluding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, accepting the evidence of the injured P.W.1, corroborated by Ex.A-1-First information Report and Ex.A-4-Charge sheet in this regard and rejecting the evidence of R.W.1, the driver/the first respondent. The statement of P.W.1 in Ex.A-6-deposition in C.C.No.492 of 1997 and her earlier statement to the police were not accepted as indicating the absence of any rashness and negligence on the part of the first respondent as she stated about the same specifically in that evidence also. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal accepted the age of P.W.1 as 45 years as stated by her and in Ex.A-2-Wound Certificate and also accepted her monthly income to be Rs.3,000/- per month in the absence of any contrary evidence to her claims. Ex.A-2-Wound Certificate was noted to be disclosing, along with Ex.A-3-x-ray that P.W.1 sustained three injuries for which she claimed that she was treated at M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. Ex.A-5-bunch of medical bills were also referred to and based on her claim that she lost two teeth of lower jaw and suffered a fracture of the left foot, the Tribunal awarded Rs.12,000/- towards loss of earnings for four months, Rs.5,147/- towards medical expenses and Rs.4,000/- towards pain and suffering. The total compensation of Rs.21,147/- was directed to carry interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. 6. The appellant questioned the compensation in this appeal as meagre and requested for grant of the remaining compensation claimed due to the pain and suffering and loss of income she suffered for four months during which she was under continuous treatment. 7. Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. G. Niveditha, learned counsel representing Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned standing counsel for APSRTC/second respondent are heard. 8. The finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident being with the bus driver with his rash and negligent driving was not challenged by either party and it had become final. The corporation being jointly and severally liable along with the driver for the tortuous acts of the driver cannot be in dispute and hence, the question that remains for consideration is the just and adequate compensation payable by the respondents jointly and severally. In so far as the medical expenses are concerned, though P.W.1 claimed that she incurred an expense of Rs.20,000/- , she was treated at M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, where the treatment is free and whatever medical bills were filed by her to a tune of Rs.5,147/- under Ex.A-5, they were accepted and granted by the Tribunal. Similarly, she claimed to have been confined to bed and to be under treatment for four months and her own claim is that she was earning Rs.3,000/- per month from vegetable business. The same were also straight away accepted by the Tribunal while awarding Rs.12,000/- towards loss of earnings. However, in awarding damages for pain and suffering, the Tribunal granted only Rs.4,000/- and in the absence of any permanent or temporary disability, of course, no compensation could have been granted under that head as claimed in the claim petition. 9. The injured P.W.1 claimed in the claim petition and as P.W.1 on oath that she sustained a fracture in the left foot and lost two teeth of lower jaw. The said injuries were corroborated by Ex.A-2-Wound Certificate and that P.W.1 was injured in the accident and she was treated for the grievous injuries at M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, was also the finding of the independent Statutory Investigating Agency in Ex.A-4-Charge Sheet. While Ex.A-3-x-ray Report also corroborates Ex.A-2, the loss of two teeth and the fracture are obviously grievous injuries which have to be compensated as such, for pain and suffering and other heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. Even if the scale adopted by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, were to be adopted, the three grievous injuries are required to be compensated for pain and suffering with at least Rs.15,000/- and, therefore, grant of a further sum of Rs.11,000/- may be satisfying the legal requisite of grant of just and adequate compensation to the injured P.W.1. On the enhanced compensation, interest can be confined to 6% per annum in view of the length of time for which such interest has to be paid, while proportionate costs shall follow suit. 10. In the result, the award, dated 31.03.2003, in M.V.O.P.No.1175 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Warangal, is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.11,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award and the appeal is allowed, accordingly, in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 4th February, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2261 of 2003 Date: 4th February, 2011 KL