IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2180 of 2001 Between: Kollipara Raghavulu .. Appellant AND T. Srinivasarao and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 07-12-1995 in M.V.O.P.No.497 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur. The petitioner-appellant was involved in a motor accident on 01-12-1992, when he was going as a pillion rider on a scooter on Tenali-Kolluru road at about 3.15.P.M. Lorry No.AAG 675 driven rashly and negligently hit the scooter causing two fractures in the right leg of the petitioner, who was first treated at a private hospital at Kolluru and then at Government General Hospital, Guntur. He was an inpatient for 26 days in December 1992 and was advised bed rest for four months, but still he suffered permanent partial disability of his right leg. He spent more than Rs.3,000/- towards treatment and Kolluru police registered the case against the lorry driver. Hence, the petitioner sought for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- against the owner and insurer of the lorry. While the owner remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer contested the claim contending that the owner of the lorry did not give any information about the accident and the allegations of the petitioner are denied. The driver of the lorry was stated to be not having a regular driving licence and the claim was requested to be negatived. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation. During the enquiry, the Tribunal examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 and Ex.B.1. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly concluding that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, for which purpose it accepted the evidence of the injured petitioner as PW.1 and the contents of Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2-charge sheet. The Tribunal referred to the evidence of the injured corroborated by the medical officer examined as PW.2 concerning the injuries suffered and treatment taken by the petitioner. It noted that the petitioner claimed to be an inpatient for 26 days and to be an outpatient for six months. It further noted the petitioner to be on leave for 25 weeks and to be suffering pain, while walking in performance of his duty as Bill Collector, compelling to engage a rickshaw at an expenditure of Rs.30/- per day. The Tribunal also noted the evidence of the medical officer that there was shortening of 1½” of right leg and limp gait. The medical officer also stated that the petitioner cannot walk for long distance due to 50% disability of the functioning of the right leg. Based on such evidence, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses, conveyance and attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of enjoyment and amenities of life. On the whole, it awarded a compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. and proportionate costs. The petitioner was aggrieved by the said award and contended in this appeal that the permanent disability by the shortening of the leg should have been awarded the full compensation as claimed, which itself is on the lower side. Sri T. Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri T. Prabhu Das, learned counsel, representing Sri V. Ajay Kumar, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent are heard. Though the appeal was dismissed for default in respect of 1st respondent on 23-09-2008, as the question for consideration is only the quantum of compensation, there is no adverse impact on the maintainability of the appeal. The findings of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the lorry being the cause for the accident and the joint and several liability of both the respondents due to the subsisting insurance policy, Ex.B.1 remained unchallenged and had become final. The question that remains is only the quantum of compensation. The claim in the claim petition is for Rs.10,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses, conveyance and attendance towards which heads the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- , which appears to be a reasonable estimate. However, compensation towards loss of enjoyment and amenities of life was claimed at Rs.25,000/- by the petitioner and granted at Rs.10,000/- only by the Tribunal. The petitioner aged about 40 years by the time of accident is admittedly a Bill Collector in the Gram Panchayat and by the very nature of his occupation, he is required to go by walk from house to house in the village for collection of taxes and the medical evidence of PW.2 shows that he cannot walk for long distance due to the shortening of the right leg and as the healing of fractures resulted in mal union. The percentage of disability of the right leg was assessed at 50% by the medical officer, which assessment was not questioned in his cross- examination and the petitioner also deposed about being unable to walk freely and being compelled to engage a rickshaw to perform his duty at a cost of Rs.30/- per day at that time. This loss of enjoyment of amenities of life due to the permanent partial disability of the right leg could not have been underestimated. The adverse impact of the limp gait for life should have been reasonably and adequately compensated and on the facts and circumstances, award of a compensation of Rs.20,000/- under this head would have been but reasonable, just and adequate. If so, enhancing the compensation already awarded by another Rs.10,000/- will meet the ends of justice and such enhanced portion should carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and also proportionate costs. The impugned award has to be modified accordingly. In the result, the award dated 07-12-1995 in M.V.O.P.No.497 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur, 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 and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal and no further directions need be given at this distance of time about the disbursement of the compensation. The appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 04-08-2010 Ksn