HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR M.A.C.M.A. Nos.400 of 2007 & 469 of 2007 Dated 6-8-2010 M.A.C.M.A. No.400 of 2007: Between: Kommu Venkata Sripathi. …Petitioner. And: Sardar Guru Bachan Singh and another. …Respondents. M.A.C.M.A. No.469 of 2007: Between: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its General Manager (Now redesignated as Managing Director) Mushirabad, Hyderabad. …Petitioner. And: Kommu Venkata Sripathi and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR M.A.C.M.A. Nos.400 of 2007 & 469 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both the appeals arise out of the order passed on 1- 11-2006 in O.P.No.686 of 2004 by the learned District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karimnagar. 1st respondent in O.P.No.686 of 2004 is the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. The facts in this case are similar to O.P.No.684 of 2004 which was considered in two M.A.C.M.A.Nos.403 of 2007 and 446 of 2007 by passing Common Judgment today and hence, all the common aspects are not repeated herein. The only difference between the said two appeals and the present appeals is that the injured-claimant has suffered fracture on the right hip joint which is grievous in nature and multiple lacerated wounds and contusion over right shoulder. The injured has taken treatment at Government Hospital, Karimnagar and at Jaya Hospital, Warangal and at Orthopedic surgeon of Uday Hospitals, Hyderabad. The evidence of doctors who treated the claimant at Jaya Hospital, Warangal and Uday Hospitals, Hyderabad are recorded as P.Ws.2 and 3 and based on the said evidence, the Tribunal granted compensation towards loss of earnings at Rs.1,36,500/-, Transport Charges at Rs.2,000/-, Extra nourishment at Rs.5,000/- and reimbursement of medical expenditure treatment at Rs.93,100-92ps, aggregating to Rs.2,36,600-92ps apart from compensation towards disability of 40 to 45% suffered by the injured, on that account, Rs.1,25,000/- which covers pain and suffering and inconvenience also, thus aggregating amount of Rs.3,61,600-92ps with interest at 7.5% p.a., Similar to the two appeals referred to above, A.P.S.R.T.C. had questioned the award in M.A.C.M.A.No.469 of 2007 whereas the claimant filed M.A.C.M.A.No.400 of 2007 seeking enhancement. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C. as well as Mr. Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the claimant. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C. that apart from issue No.1, the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing compensation on higher side though except one injury, other injuries are simple in nature. Learned counsel for claimant contended that the Tribunal has disallowed giving compensation for future treatment in spite of evidence in respect thereof led by the claimant. Learned counsel for the claimant also submitted that the Tribunal has misread the evidence of P.W.3 and was under an impression as if the claimant does not need a surgery for hip replacement. So far as issue No.1 is concerned, the same being identical and in the connected O.P., I have already considered it M.A.C.M.A.Nos.403 of 2007 and 446 of 2007 and the finding of Tribunal on the said issue is confirmed. So far as Issue No.2 is concerned, the learned counsel for the claimant has placed before the Court the evidence of P.W.2 who was the Orthopedic Surgeon at Jaya Hospital, Warangal and states in his evidence that the claimant was admitted on 7-8-2003 and was discharged on 18-8-003 on the advice to come for review after four weeks and also to go to a Higher Center for further management. The Medical Bills as well as Discharge Certificates from Jaya Hospital are marked as Exs.A.12 and 13 and as Exs.A.5 to A.7. In his cross examination, the witness clarified that the Administrator will sign the bills whenever purchases are made by the patient as per prescription of the Hospital. Except the above Cross-examination, there is hardly any other cross examination of the said witness. The claimant also examined P.W.3, Orthopedic Surgeon who treated the claimant at Udaya Hospitals, Hyderabad. He states in his evidence that the claimant was admitted with injuries to his right hip on 27-9-2003 and he was suffering from communuted fracture of acetabulum with subluxated right hip. He was assessed and on 30-9-2003, he was operated for the above injury. The operation is described as Open reduction bone grafting and plate and screw fixation to Acetabulum. He was discharged from the hospital on 11-10-2003 with an advice to take rest and follow up at Uday Clinic on regular basis. During the said follow up, the Certificates were issued under Exs.A.9, A.8 and A.11. Apart from issuance of bills under Exs.A.8, A.12, the witness specifically has been advised to undergo a total hip replacement by doctors at Udai Clinic on 29-7-2005, whenever his condition/pain in the hip worsens. The approximate cost of such operation is estimated at Rs.3,00,000/-. The said witness on cross-examination had reiterated his statement that the claimant has to undergo at least two hip replacements in the life time with the currently available technology and the expenditure for that would be in the range of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal in pagraph 9 referred to the said evidence but has erroneously recorded as if the said doctor did not speak of future surgery required by the claimant and on the erroneous assumption that no doctor is examined to speak on requirement of future surgery, compensation in that regard was denied. Learned counsel for the claimant therefore submits that to that extent ,award requires the revision. On the contrary the learned Standing counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C. submits that the said future earnings which are quantified by the claimants is on a higher side and is too speculative to claim compensation now. I have considered the submissions and I am of the view that the findings of the Tribunal in paragraph 9 suffers from misreading of evidence of P.W.3 the Orthopedic Surgeon, who specifically states of nature of surgery already done on the claimant and that future surgery is required to be performed whenever there is pain or contusion. The possibility of future surgery therefore appears likely keeping in view that the claimant is aged 44 years on the date of claim petition. The medical opinion therefore cannot be brushed aside and therefore has to be accepted. Though the learned counsel for the claimant submits that the expenditure for two hip replacement surgeries spoken of by P.W.3 would itself run into several lakhs as on today, at least amount as spoken to by P.W.3 deserves to be awarded. The claimant in the present case was claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- out of which, the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.3,61,600-92ps. In view of the fact that the said award is based on the documents including the medical records marked before the Tribunal, I do not see any reason to interfere with the amount awarded by the Tribunal. However, to the extent of the appeal by the claimant, the medical evidence particularly that of P.W.3 if taken into consideration for the surgeries of two replacement surgeries, claimant is advised to undergo surgery again and under the said head, though P.W.3 has estimated an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, I am of view that at least a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- would be just and proper compensation towards the future medical treatment of the claimant. The impugned award therefore is modified to that extent by enhancing the same by a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for future medical treatment. So far as the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a., is concerned, the same is required to be scalled down to 6% p.a., in conformity with decision in SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER ([1]). Learned counsel for the claimant also submits that the car in which the claimant was traveling was also badly damaged. The tribunal has not given any compensation in that respect though compensation of Rs.40,000/- was claimed on that account and Ex.A.2 Charge Sheet itself shows that the car suffered extensive damage. In the absence of any positive and quantifiable evidence however, a reasonable amount of Rs.20,000/- should be appropriate to cover the damage to the car of the claimant. Thus, the impugned award shall stand enhanced for a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- over the amount awarded by the Tribunal. However, the same shall be at the interest of 6% pa., as against 7.5% p.a., granted by the Tribunal. Both the appeals are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 6-8-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR M.A.C.M.A. Nos.400 of 2007 & 469 of 2007 Dated 6-8-2010 [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121