IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.NO.2232 OF 2000 AND CXOBJSR.NO.31275 OF 2001. Date:26.10.2009. C.M.A.NO.2232 OF 2000:- Between:- The Superintendent of Police, Adilabad and another ..Appellants/Petitioners And Bobbily Shanker and others. .. Respondents And CXOBJSR.NO.31275 OF 2001:- Bobbily Shanker ..Cross Objector And The Superintendent of Police, Adilabad and others .. Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT:- This appeal and cross objections were directed against the order dated 14.08.1996 in O.P.No.176 of 1994 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Additional District Judge, Adilabad, wherein the claim of the claimant was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest at 15% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration representing the appellants. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant. 4. Perused the records. 5. The claimant filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.2,12,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.03.1992 at Ichoda. According to the claimant, he is working as a Teacher in Mandal Praja Parishad School , Gudihathnur and on 30.03.1992, at about 3 p.m., while he was going to Adegaon after attending his school duty, a police jeep bearing No.ATU 5863 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed him from behind and the left front wheel of the vehicle passed over both his legs, as a result of which, he sustained fracture of both legs. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Boath and from there, he was referred to Government Hospital, Adilabad and from there, to Medical College Hospital, Nagapur where he underwent treatment for one and a half months. 6. The appellants denied their liability to pay compensation in the counter on the ground that the driver of the jeep, who also died in the accident, has taken the jeep unauthorisedly without permission of the concerned authorities. 7. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the claimant and Exs.A-1 to A-57 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the appellants. 8. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Jeep by its driver and further, held that the claimant is eligible for a total compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest at 15% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition. Aggrieved by the Award, the appellants filed the present appeal and not satisfied with the Award, the claimant filed cross objections seeking enhancement of the compensation. 9. Admittedly, the jeep belonged to the Police Department and it was a police jeep. The driver of the jeep also died in the accident. A case was registered in Cr.No.14 of 1993 of P.S.Ichoda. The investigation into the said complaint also establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep driven by its driver. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the appellants to show that the driver did not belong to the appellants’ Department nor he was hired by them and that he has unauthorisedly taken the jeep. It cannot, for a moment, be accepted that police jeep would have been taken on to the road by someone unauthorisedly and without the permission of the concerned authorities. The appellants have also not placed any evidence to show as to how the police jeep came on to the road at the time of accident and under what circumstances, when the driver of the jeep was not authorized by the department to take the vehicle. The plea of the appellants that the jeep was taken away by its driver unauthorisedly cannot be, for a moment, believed at all. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly fastened liability on the appellants to pay the compensation as the accident occurred while the jeep, belonging to the Police Department, was driven by its driver. 10. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- for the two fracture injuries and Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering and other expenses incurred for the treatment, Rs.12,000/- towards medical expenses covered by medical bills produced under Exs.A-9 to A-54, Rs.10,000/- towards expenses incurred for treatment to the injuries sustained by him for a period of six months, Rs.10,000/- for future treatment, Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges in connection with the trips made by the claimant to Nagapur for follow-up treatment on four or five occasions and Rs.18,000/- towards loss of earnings for a period of six months. 11. The medical evidence available on record and particularly, the discharge card – Ex.A-5 would show that the claimant sustained two fracture injuries on both the legs and was hospitalized at Nagpur for about 1 ½ months and he has incurred about Rs.12,000/- for medical expenses. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained and also the length of period of hospitalization, the amounts granted by the Tribunal under various heads, as stated above, is just and reasonable. 12. The learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the injuries resulted in permanent disability and the claimant can walk only with the aid of stick, but the Tribunal failed to award any compensation for the said permanent disability. 13. The claimant has not examined any medical expert to show that the injuries have resulted in permanent disability. The claimant has also not produced any certificate of disability issued by a competent medical expert. In the absence of any such evidence, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the claimant for compensation on account of the alleged permanent disability, as the said claim is not proved at all. 14. Under those circumstances, it is held that the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation for the two fracture injuries sustained by the claimant is just and reasonable and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. 15. In the result, the appeal and also the cross objections are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 26th October, 2009 AMD