IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 3023 OF 1998 Between: Sri Thummala Janardhana Rao ......Appellant AND B.Pydithalli and others ......Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Sri K.Subrahmanyam Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following:- JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the claimant to the extent of disallowed claim in M.O.P.No.118 of 1995 on account of the injuries suffered by him. 2. The accident, in question, occurred on 04.07.1994 when the claimant was returning from his office on his Luna bearing No.A.H.Q.703, the offending vehicle bearing No.A.P.31 T 4898 driven by the first respondent came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the vehicle of the claimant. The claimant was 50 years old and working as a Mechanic in M.T. Workshop of D.G.N.P., Visakhapatnam, which is a Government of India undertaking. The claimant alleged that on account of the said accident he had to take prolonged medical treatment and it also resulted in a permanent disability to his legs and as such claimed for Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. Under the impugned award granted by the Tribunal below, it is found that the offending vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner and to the extent of compensation the tribunal below found that though the claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 30%, he is entitled to lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal below also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the medical expenditure incurred by him and a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards payment of suffering. Thus, an aggregate sum of Rs.77,000/- was awarded with 12% interest, dissatisfied by the same the present appeal is filed. 4. I have heard Sri K.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. He has contended that the estimation on damages i.e., pecuniary damages, by the Tribunal below is much on a lower side and in stead of taking into consideration the evidence on record including that of the doctor, who certified the injury of the claimant, the tribunal has awarded only a lump sum figure of Rs.50,000/- which is not a ‘just’ compensation to the extent. 5. I have considered the aforesaid submissions in the light of the evidence on record. It is evident from the record that the claimant is a Central Government employee and working as a Mechanic and was 50 years of age at the time of accident and he received injuries on his head, left eye and both the legs were fractured. The prolonged medical treatment taken by him as an inpatient for about 34 days and continuing treatment thereafter, were established by filing Ex.A5 and A6 certificates, issued by the Balaji Nursing Home, where he was admitted as inpatient and had undergone treatment. Exs.A7 and A8 are the bunch of medical bills, x-rays and other diagnostic tests. The claimant assert that he has incurred total expenditure of Rs.1,40,000/- and he is not entitled to medical reimbursement also from the office. The treating doctor of the Balaji Nursing Home, being no more, could not be examined in support of the claimant’s case. However, another doctor PW2, who certified the disability of the claimant in his capacity as an Assistant professor of Orthopedic Department, K.G. Hospital was however examined. The said doctor has stated that the claimant cannot attend to his normal duties and he has to walk with the help of a stick. He says that the hands of the claimant are normal and he is able to attend the work but mobility of the claimant is affected on account of the accident and as such, assessed the said disability of 30%. It is also on evidence that apart from the amount spent on the medicines as exhibited under Exs.A7 and A8, the claimant also has spent towards the diagnostic tests and the fees to the doctors etc., and taking all that into consideration he has claimed a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-. The tribunal, however, has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the medicines and the balance amount was disallowed as claimant was not able to furnish the receipts with regard to the diagnostic tests and the fees of the doctors etc. Even by taking the estimation of Rs.1,40,000/- claimed by the claimant on that account, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that he must have spent at least half of that amount, say approximately Rs.75,000/-. Thus, the amount of Rs.15,000/- only awarded by the tribunal below on that account is not justified and the said amount deserves an appropriate enhancement by a further sum of Rs.60,000/-. 6. Similarly, to the extent of non-pecuniary damages only a lump sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded by the tribunal below, though the evidence of PW-2 establishes that there is a considerable disability suffered by the claimant. Keeping in view his age as 50 years at the time of accident and that he is working in a Central Government Organisation, I feel it appropriate to enhance the said amount also by a further sum of Rs.50,000/- in aggregate. Thus, the total amount of compensation of Rs.77,000/- awarded by the tribunal below shall stand enhanced by Rs.60,000/- towards medicines, medical treatment and a further sum of Rs.50,000/- towards non pecuniary damages etc. In all, the claimants are entitled to an aggregate compensation of Rs.1,87,000/-. The appeal, therefore, shall stand allowed to that extent and the said enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till realization. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ (VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR, J) 28th August, 2009 Ivd