HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A NO.3328 OF 2008 DATE: 24.06.2010 Between: APSRTC., Rep., by General Manager, Hyderabad. …… Petitioner. And: Alugunuri Lingaswamy, Nalgonda District. …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A NO.3328 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: Questioning quantum of compensation awarded by the lower tribunal at Rs.1,53,000/- to the claimant/injured, APSRTC filed this appeal. The claimant in turn filed cross objections claiming more compensation than awarded by the lower tribunal. The lower tribunal granted Rs.81,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.45,000/- towards medical expense, Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.5,000/- towards special food and nutrition, Rs.4,000/- towards future medical expenses for removal of rod, totalling Rs.1,53,000/-. The appellant questions award of Rs.81,000/- towards permanent disability. According to the claimant, he was working as clerk in a rice mill drawing salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. But, the claimant could not produce any proof relating to his job or his income. Therefore, the lower tribunal fixed his income notionally at Rs.1,500/- per month. So far as percentage of permanent disability is concerned, there is medical evidence let in by the claimant as P.Ws. 2 to 4 and Exs.A-3, A-5 and A-6. P.W.2 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon in Area Hospital, Bhongir where the claimant/P.W.1 was taken immediately after the accident. P.W.2 issued Ex.A-3 wound certificate. P.W.3 is a surgeon in Nivedita Orthopaedic Centre, Hyderabad. It is his evidence that P.W.1 was admitted in that hospital for comminuted compound fracture of left leg and that they have operated on P.W.1 along with other doctors and that plastic surgery was done at the end of treatment. He says that such fracture has unending problems and that skin of left leg was totally absent and it was grafted and that in such injury, function of bones and joint will never become normal and that the wound never heels and that there will be resulting limp, infection, deformation and disability which is permanent in nature. P.W.4 is Civil Surgeon specialist in Orthopaedic Department of the District Head Quarters Hospital, Nalgonda. He is one of the doctors in District Medical Board for issue of certificates to the orthopaedically handicapped patients. No doubt, in this case, the claimant did not obtain any physically handicapped certificate from the District Medical Board showing percentage of his permanent disability. But, at the time same, evidence of P.W.4 is relevant herein because he is a specialist in Orthopaedics. According to P.W.4 permanent disability due to injury sustained by P.W.1 is 50%. The lower tribunal took permanent disability of the petitioner at 25% only and assessed damages for permanent disability. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that since injury was to P.W.1’s leg and since P.W.1 was working as a clerk in a sitting job, inspite of the injury, P.W.1 will not actually sustain any financial loss due to permanent disability for him. Compensation for permanent disability is notionally determined and not on the basis of actual loss of income. At any rate, because of the permanent disability, P.W.1 has utmost physical discomfort even for doing a sitting job. He has to do the job while suffering pain due to permanent disability and he has to suffer discomfort throughout his life because of limping. It has social impact apart from economic impact. Having regard to all the circumstances, award of compensation for permanent disability at Rs.81,000/- is appropriate. For determining physical discomfort and social impact, percentage spoken to by the expert has only marginal relevance. While assessing damages, the lower tribunal totally failed to award general damages for basic injuries sustained by P.W.1. All the heads of damages awarded by the lower tribunal are special heads and no general head. Since the claimant sustained comminuted compound fracture of both bones of one lower limb, this Court is of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for general damages of Rs.25,000/- for the said injury apart from special damages awarded by the lower tribunal. The appellant’s counsel contends that award of interest at 9% per annum on the compensation is inappropriate because present day bank rate of interest is only 7.5% p.a. The accident occurred in the year 1998. There is no evidence on record as to what was the bank rate during the year 1998 or in the year 2002 when claim petition was filed in the lower Tribunal when the claimant became entitled for the compensation after the accident. Therefore, I do not want to disturb rate of interest awarded by the lower tribunal. At any rate, awarding of future interest is within the discretion of the tribunal and the lower tribunal rightly exercised its discretion in favour of the claimant. In view of my above discussion, total compensation amount comes to Rs.1,78,000/-. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs; and the cross objections are partly allowed awarding additional compensation of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) to the cross objector/claimant over and above Rs.1,53,000/- granted by the lower tribunal. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:24.06.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A NO.3328 OF 2008 Date:24.06.2010 Gk.