THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.3911 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant against the order dated 22.7.2002 in M.V.O.P.No.494 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada whereby and whereunder a total compensation of Rs.71,314/- was awarded as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal can be summarised as follows: On 28.5.1997, the appellant-claimant had boarded a hi-tech bus bearing No. AP 20 T 4944 at Hyderabad to go to Vijayawada by paying necessary freight charges. That on the following morning i.e. 29.5.1997 at about 6.00 am, when the bus reached near Srinivasa Stone Crusher, NH 9 at Ketanakonda, the hi-tech bus was driven at high speed in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, being unable to control the said bus dashed against the lorry coming from opposite side causing death of three passengers and causing grievous injuries to other passengers. The appellant-claimant is one of the injured in the accident. A case in Crime No.197/97 was registered by the concerned Police Station. 3. The second respondent- National Insurance Company with whom the accident hi-tech bus was insured denied the petition allegations as to the age, earnings and avocation of the appellant- claimant. It also denied the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of respondent No.1 as well as the injuries suffered by the appellant- claimant and the involvement of the said bus in the accident and alleged that the driver of the bus was not having valid and subsisting driving licence at the time of the accident as well as the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 W 3897 and that there was no valid and covering insurance policy in respect of the said lorry and further alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the said lorry driver and not due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the hi-tech bus. 4. The fourth respondent-United India Insurance Company has also denied the allegations on the same lines as that of the second respondent –National Insurance company. 5. In support of her case, the appellant-claimant got herself examined as PW.1 besides examining the doctor as PW.2 who treated her for the injuries sustained in the accident and got marked Exs.A1-FIR, A2- wound certificate, A3- M.V.I. report, A-4 -discharge summary, A-5 and A.6 medical bills for Rs.8,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively, Ex.A.7- bunch of medical bills (13) for a sum of Rs.2,144- 25ps, Ex.A.8- bunch of medical prescriptions numbering 15 and Ex.A9- x-ray films numbering 3. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondents. Ex.X.1- disability certificate, Ex.X.2- evaluation certificate and Ex.X.3- x-ray were marked as court documents. 6. The trial court after framing the issues as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of hi-tech bus driver and also to the liability of the respondents as well as the quantum of the compensation, gave a finding on the first issue that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. the hi-tech bus bearing No. AP 20 T 4944 and lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 3897. 7. While considering issue No.2, the Tribunal taking into consideration the medical record, including bills etc. awarded an amount of Rs.15,114-25ps towards medical expenses as against the amount of Rs.20,000/-, considering Ex.A-4 discharge certificate, an amount of Rs.1200/- was awarded towards extra nourishment as against the claim of Rs.5,000/-, considering that the appellant- claimant was bed ridden and inpatient since she suffered injures on her abdomen, backbone and on her left foot and was treated for three months, awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering as claimed by the appellant. 8. Though the appellant claimed Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent disability, an amount of Rs.30,000/- was granted towards permanent disability, though, the Doctor who treated the appellant- claimant was examined and through him the disability certificate and the evaluation certificate (Exs.X.1 and X2) were marked, according to which the appellant-claimant had suffered 20% disability. PW.2 also confirmed 20% disability and his testimony reveals that the appellant- claimant needs a supporting stick while walking throughout her life. Moreover, the material on record also reveals that the appellant- claimant was aged 40 years on the date of the accident and she claimed to be doing milk business. 9. That though the appellant-claimant claimed Rs.55,000/- towards loss of earnings, for about five months, during the period of her treatment, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- without considering the present legal position that the services rendered as house wife towards her family cannot be evaluated in terms of money . Thus in all the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.71,314/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation apportioning the liability between R1 & R2 on one hand and R.3 & R.4 on the other at 50% each. Thus the Tribunal answered issue No.2. 10. It is the case of the second respondent-insurance company that the Tribunal after taking into consideration the entire material on record awarded a total compensation of Rs.71,314/- as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- and the same is just and reasonable and that for seeking enhancement of the same there are no justifiable grounds. 11. In view of the evidence brought on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability which is just and reasonable, instead of granting Rs.30,000/-, in view of the evidence of PW.2-Doctor and Exs.Exs.X.1 and X.2, which were marked through him. So far as awarding loss of earnings for five months is concerned, even if the monthly earnings of the claimant is taken at Rs.3,000/- per month, the total loss of earnings for five months would come to Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earnings for five months, instead of awarding Rs.5,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant relying on the decision reported in Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others,[1] contended that the services rendered by the housewife cannot be compensated in terms of the money and that the Tribunal erred in not awarding appropriate compensation. However, a perusal of the decision goes to show that the Apex Court rendered the said decision in a matter where the deceased was housewife, whereas in this case, the claimant is injured. 12. In the circumstances, it is to be held that the appellants- claimants are entitled to claim a total compensation of Rs.1,01,314- 25ps-/- (Rupees One Lakh One Thousand Three Hundred Fourteen and Twenty Five paise) only (i.e. Rs.15,114-25ps towards medical expenses, Rs.1200/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of earnings) with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation. 13. With the above modification, the C.M.A. is disposed of. _________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 09.9.2010 Stp [1] AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3218