IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2062 OF 2003 Between: Edulla Sanjeeva Reddy ..... Appellant And K. Madhusudhan Reddy & another …Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2062 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.973 of 1999, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nalgonda, dated 27.01.2003. 2. The factual background for the appeal is that the claimant in O.P.No.973 of 1999 and another person who is the claimant in O.P.No.1010 of 1999 before the Tribunal were returning on a motor cycle on 13.06.1999 at about 5.30 p.m. to Pedakaparthy Village in the outskirts of Choutuppal Mandal. The maruthi car bearing No.AP 28L 777 coming in high speed and driven rashly and negligently came in the opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle. The claimants in both the cases suffered grievous injuries and also permanent disability and hence, the claimant in O.P.No.973 of 1999 claimed a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- from the owner and insurer of the maruthi car claiming them to be vicariously liable for the rash and negligent driving of the driver. While the owner of the car remained ex parte, the insurer contested the claim putting the claimant to strict proof and questioning the existence of a valid driving license for the driver of the maruthi car and the road worthiness of the maruthi car. Claiming that there were violations of the essential terms of the insurance policy, the insurer claimed to be absolved from the liability. 3. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident, the ownership and insurance of the maruthi car and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation. 4. O.P.Nos.973 and 1010 of 1999 were tried together examining both the claimants as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marking Exs.A-1 to A-17 and Ex.B-1 during the enquiry. The respondents did not produce any oral evidence. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 corroborated by Ex.A-1 - First Information Report, Ex.A-2 – Charge sheet and Ex.A-8 – order in S.T.C.No.27 of 1999 convicting the driver of the maruthi car for the related offences on his own admission. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded the accident to have occurred due to the fault of the driver of the maruthi car. Ex.B-1-copy of the cover note for the insurance policy was taken as the basis for concluding the ownership of the maruthi car to be with the first respondent and the insurance with the second respondent to be subsisting and valid. 6. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal noted that Ex.A-16 – disability certificate about the consequences of the fractures suffered by the claimant even after treatment showed partial permanent disability of 10% and towards the same, the Tribunal considered it fit to award Rs.10,000/- each towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life due to loss of the great toe in the right lower limb. However, while appreciating the medical bills under Ex.A-5 to a tune of Rs.92,266.72 Ps. and the medical record Ex.A-15, the Tribunal refused to accept the same at face value in the absence of the evidence of the doctor or any other person connected with the hospital and awarded only Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses, extra nourishment charges and transportation charges. Considering that there was no evidence except the word of the claimant that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from the bore well business, the Tribunal assessed the income at Rs.1,000/- per month and granted only Rs.6,000/- towards total loss of earnings and Rs.20,400/- towards future loss of earnings taking the disability of the claimant at 10%. The total compensation of Rs.71,400/- was also directed to carry interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. 7. The claimant challenged the said award more particularly about the refusal to grant the medical expenses and about fixing his income at only Rs.1,000/- per month while he was earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month from the bore well business. He also claimed that interest ought to have been awarded at 12% per annum. 8. Sri M. Madhav Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N.V. Jagannath, learned counsel for the second respondent- insurer were heard and none appeared for the owner of the maruthi car before this Court also. 9. The conclusions of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the driver of the maruthi car for the accident and the ownership of the maruthi car with the first respondent and its valid and subsisting insurance with the second respondent were not challenged by any party and have become final. 10. Therefore, the only point that remains for consideration is the quantum of just and adequate compensation to which the claimant is entitled. 11. Insofar as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life at Rs.10,000/- each in respect of the three fractures in the right lower limb resulting in 10% permanent partial disability due to loss of great toe in the right lower limb is concerned, the said quantum is in tune with the sums normally awarded under such heads and need no interference. Coming to the medical expenses, Ex.A-15- record of Kamineni Hospitals showing every detail of the treatment undergone by the claimant in the said hospital and Ex.A-5-medical bills issued by the said hospital were not subjected to any cross-examination about their genuineness and authenticity. Ex.A-5-bills are in tune with the treatment undergone as per Ex.A-15-record. Ex.A-5-bills specify wherever relevant, receipt of the amounts charged from time to time by the hospital and any scope for manipulation of such bills does not appear to be present, more so, in view of the consistency between Exs.A-5 and A-15 and why the doctor who treated the claimant should be examined to prove the payments made by the claimant to the hospital is unintelligible. The examination of the Medical Expert may become necessary to prove the injuries or their consequences but not the medical expenses and in the absence of any improbablising circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be considered justified in not accepting Ex.A-5-bills as that is depriving the claimant of the reimbursement of the actual expenses incurred to which he was entitled. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the balance of Rs.67,266/- towards the medical expenditure actually incurred and taking into account the other inevitable expenses he would have incurred towards extra nourishment, expenses of attendant and transportation charges, the compensation to be awarded under these heads can be rounded off to Rs.75,000/-. 12. The Tribunal took into account the monthly income of the claimant only at Rs.1,000/- per month though he claimed to be earning Rs.10,000/- per month from bore well business. Notwithstanding the absence of any positive documentary evidence for corroborating the oral evidence for such claims of P.W.1, the Tribunal could not have assessed the income of the claimant at less than even the notional income adopted by the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in respect of non- earning persons at Rs.15,000/- per annum. The able-bodied young man at the age of 30 years could not have remained idle and must be occupying himself in a respectable avocation to sustain himself and his family and keeping in view the minimum wages payable to even unskilled labourers at the relevant time under the Minimum Wages Act, including variable dearness allowance, the claimant can be assessed to be earning a minimum of Rs.1,500/- per month even in the absence of any positive evidence. If so, on the future loss of earnings arising on application of the multiplier 17 for the age of 30 years, another 50% of such amount should be added which comes to Rs.10,200/- and the loss of earnings also should be accordingly enhanced by another Rs.3,000/-. 13. The damages or compensation to which the claimant was entitled thus was underassessed by at least Rs.88,200/- by the Tribunal and by rounding off such sum to Rs.90,000/- as the amount to be enhanced, the claimant will be getting just and adequate compensation for the injuries and their consequences suffered due to the accident. 14. Though the interest was awarded on the original compensation at 9% per annum, in view of the distance of time for which the insurer has to pay interest on the enhanced portion of the compensation, it can be limited to 6% per annum while of course, proportionate costs shall follow suit. 15. In the result, the award in O.P.No.973 of 1999, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nalgonda, dated 27.01.2003, is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.90,000/- with interest at 6% per annum thereon from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal by the impugned award and no direction need be given at this distance of time regarding the disbursement of the enhanced compensation. 16. The appeal is allowed, accordingly, in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 18th November, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2062 OF 2003 November 18, 2010. KL