THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.445 of 2005 JUDGMENT: 1 The claimant in O.P.No.116 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (FTC) at Nizamabad is the appellant herein. He filed the claim petition under Section 166 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation at Rs.2.00 lakhs towards the injuries received by him in respect of an accident that took place on 25.10.2001 at Ramachandrapally bus stand. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence, by judgment dated 29.09.2004, found that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. 2 The facts that led to the filing of the present appeal are as follows: On 25.10.2001, the appellant along with others was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP 25 U 750 from Armoor to Mamidipalli and when the auto reached near Ramachandrapally bus stand, the driver of the said auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in the auto turning turtle. In the said accident, the appellant and others sustained grievous injuries. According to the appellant, he sustained fracture injury of left leg and also sustained injuries on his head, legs, hands, back and chest etc. He was shifted to government hospital, Nizamabad for treatment and thereafter he was shifted to a private hospital where he alleged to have spent an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenditure. According to the appellant, he is still taking treatment from a private doctor and has spent Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment. In connection with the said accident, a case in Cr.No.141 of 2001 on the file of P.S.Maklur was registered against the driver of the auto for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC. Ex.A.1 is the F.I.R. The Police, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet which was marked as Ex.A.2. 3 First respondent, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition except admitting that the said auto was insured with the second respondent at the time of accident. According to him, the second respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation, if any, awarded by the Tribunal. It is further pleaded that the driver of the auto was having valid driving licence and the vehicle was also having valid permit to carry passengers. 4 The second respondent – insurance company filed their written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition as well as the claim of the appellant contending that the crime vehicle has not caused any accident as alleged by the appellant. They disputed the age, income and the treatment taken by the appellant. According to them, the accident occurred due to overload of the auto and not because of any rash or negligent driving of the driver of the auto and hence the claimant is not entitled for any compensation. 5 Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP 25 U 750 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what just amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 6 In order to establish his claim, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and he also got examined the doctor who treated him as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. On behalf of the first respondent i.e. the owner of the vehicle none was examined and no documents were marked. However, on behalf of the second respondent – insurance company no one was examined, but copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B.1. 7 There is no dispute with regard to the manner in which the accident took place. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.2 and A.3 establish the fact that the incident took place due to auto turning turtile. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record held that the driver of the auto was responsible for the vehicle turning turtile and causing injuries to the appellant as well as the other passengers travelling in the auto at the time of accident. The said finding of the Tribunal has not been challenged by the insurance company and it has become final. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of P.W.2 and the medical certificates filed in support the claim made by the appellant, held that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,000/- only as compensation. The tribunal disbelieved the evidence of P.W.2 holding that the evidence of the doctor with regard to 50% disability because of mal-united fracture is not free from suspicion as in the cross-examination he admitted that “there is a Government Board of doctors at Nizamabad to issue disability certificate and that he issued the disability certificate Ex.A.7 in private capacity.” So when there is Government Medical Board of doctors at Nizamabad to assess the disability of an injured person, nothing prevented the appellant in approaching the said Medical Board for assessing the disability. No explanation has been furnished by the appellant for not approaching the Medical Board to assess his alleged disability because of the alleged fracture. 8 The Tribunal further held that no X-rays taken from the Government hospital were marked and also there is no report of the radiologist to substantiate the same and that though the doctor referred the appellant to take treatment at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, he did not go there, but on the other hand, he took treatment in a private hospital where P.W.2 treated him. 9 Though served, none appeared for the first respondent. 10 Head the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent and perused the material available on record. 11 The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is too meager and the same needs to be enhanced. According to him, the Tribunal did not take into consideration Ex.A.5 wound certificate and also Ex.A.7 disability certificate issued by P.W.2. He further contends that no amount was awarded towards transport, pain and suffering and the expenditure incurred for taking treatment. 12 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent contends that the Tribunal, after taking into consideration all the aspects, awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards the simple injuries sustained by the appellant. According to him, there is no evidence to prove that the appellant sustained fractures and except the prescription said to have been issued by a private doctor which does not even contain the signature of the doctor who treated him there is no other evidence on record to substantiate the plea of the appellant. He further contends that there are no grounds in this appeal to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and hence prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 13 According to P.W.1, on the date of incident he was travelling in the auto bearing No.AP 25 U 750 which turned turtle causing injuries to him. Immediately he was taken to Government Hospital at Nizamabad where the doctor issued Ex.A.5 medical certificate. The said document is not in dispute and no suggestions are given by the counsel for the respondent suspecting the genuineness of the said document. A reading of the said document would indicate that the claimant sustained two grievous injuries on the left leg and thigh femur bone. The age of the injury was shown as 1 to 6 hours and one of the injuries was found to be closed fracture. X-rays to both left femur and left leg were taken. The injured was referred to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. But for the reasons best known to him, the appellant did not proceed to Hyderabad for taking treatment in Osmania General Hospital at Hyderabad. On the other hand, he took treatment in a private nursing home where he is said to have undergone an operation to his left leg. Even according to the appellant, the entire expenditure incurred by him towards admission in the hospital, for undergoing operation and for purchase of medicines is Rs.30,000/-. Of course, no evidence has been produced to show that he has incurred expenditure to that extent. 14 The finding of the Tribunal that the appellant sustained two simple injuries and awarding Rs.1,500/- each towards the two simple injuries appears to be incorrect. The appellant sustained one grievous injury and one simple injury. 15 Taking into consideration the fact that at the earliest point of time the doctor i.e. P.W.2 examined him on the date of accident itself and issued Ex.A.5 wound certificate, which would disclose that the appellant sustained a grievous injury and also the fact that he was referred to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment, I feel that a sum of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded towards damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injury. 16 In view of the fracture sustained, the appellant must have been out of his job for a considerable period of time. The appellant was eking out his livelihood by selling vegetables. Though no evidence is produced to establish the income, taking into consideration the notional income at Rs.100/- per day, the loss of earning for a period of 1 ½ to two months would be around Rs.5,000/-. 17 The learned counsel for the appellant contends that no amount has been awarded towards transportation. It is a fact that the appellant fell down from the auto when it turned turtle at Ramachandrapally bus stand on Armoor – Mamidipally Road and from there he was shifted to Government hospital at Nizamabad, which is at a far off place and from there to a private hospital. Therefore, he must have incurred some expenditure towards transportation and also towards the assistance of an attendant while being admitted in hospital and thereafter. In that view of the matter, awarding a further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards transportation and Rs.1,500/- towards attendant charges would be just and reasonable. 18 Thus, in all, the appellant is entitled to Rs.15,000/- (towards pain, suffering and trauma) + Rs.5,000/- (towards loss of earning due to injury) +1,500/- (for the simple injury) + Rs.3,500/- (towards transportation and attendant charges) = Rs.25,000/-. 19 In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit into Court. No order as to costs. --------------------------------- C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 09.08.2012 Kvsn