IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1638 of 2005 Between: Manipuri Venkat Rao .. Appellant AND Ahmed Moinuddin and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.1123 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad, dated 18-03-2005. The appellant was travelling on his cycle on 08-10-2000, when auto No.AP-25-T-4649, driven rashly and negligently, dashed from behind resulting in fracture of left thigh bone, and injuries on hands, legs, head and all over the body. He was treated at Government Hospital, Nizamabad with an expenditure of Rs.40,000/- and the injured was earning Rs.5,000/- per month before the accident at the age of 32 years as a driver. He incurred a permanent disability and therefore, calculated the compensation to which he was entitled at Rs.27,43,500/-, but restricted the same to Rs.2,00,000/-. The police registered Crime No.125 of 2000 against the auto driver and hence, the claim against the owner and insurer of the auto. While the owner of the auto remained ex parte, the insurer denied the allegations of the claimant and put him to strict proof of the allegations and denied the auto driver having a valid driving licence and the auto being roadworthy and having valid permit. The insurer denied the responsibility for the claim. The Tribunal framed the issues about the responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the claimant to compensation and during the course of enquiry, the Tribunal examined PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.8 and Ex.B.1. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly accepting Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2-charge sheet as corroborating the claims of the injured-PW.1 about the accident being caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto. The Tribunal, while examining the compensation payable, referred to the claims of PW.1 and the doctor-PW.2 and noted that the doctor opined the fracture of left femur to be grievous and the other two injuries to be simple. The Tribunal also noted that PW.2, the doctor, did not state anything about the disability of the petitioner as certified under Ex.A.8 and the Tribunal, therefore, granted Rs.14,500/- towards medical bills produced through Exs.A.6, while not taking into account such bills for the year 2003 and the Tribunal also awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering for grievous injuries and Rs.2,000/- towards simple injuries. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.7,500/- towards loss of income and Rs.1,000/- towards transport and Rs.5,000/- more towards pain and suffering for the injuries. In total, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.35,000/- to the claimant with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The claimant challenged the same in this appeal contending that the entire compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. should have been granted towards permanent disability, pain and suffering, loss of earnings, medical expenses and other damages. Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Nisaruddin Ahmed Jeddy, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent are heard and the 1st respondent is unrepresented before this Court also. The respondents did not challenge the findings of the Tribunal about the manner in which the accident had occurred and therefore, the joint and several liability of the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle due to its rash and negligent driving leading to the accident cannot be in question. It is only the quantum of compensation to which the claimant is entitled that is under adjudication in this appeal. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 showed that PW.1 suffered a fracture of left femur, a contusion on the left parietal region, and an abrasion on the left knee. Grant of Rs.1,000/- each towards two simple injuries and grant of Rs.5,000/- towards grievous injury was in tune with the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tribunal also thought it fit to award another Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering for the grievous and simple injuries. As in a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation for pain and suffering for grievous and simple injuries is conventionally granted at a higher scale, awarding a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards grievous injuries and Rs.2,500/- towards simple injuries towards pain and suffering will be meeting the ends of justice. Insofar as the medical expenses are concerned, in the absence of any document to show such expenses beyond what was granted by the Tribunal at about the relevant time, the rejection of any further claim towards bills of the year 2003 cannot be considered incorrect. The Tribunal was just in awarding the compensation towards transport, extra nourishment, loss of income and the other damages, which, therefore, needs no interference. It would be suffice in the interests of justice to enhance the compensation by Rs.7,500/- and the interest on the enhanced compensation can be granted at the same rate of 9% p.a., which is not shown to be in any way deviant from the then prevailing rate of interest. Therefore, the award dated 18-03-2005 in O.P.No.1123 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad, is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.7,500/- with interest thereon at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to the compensation already granted by the impugned award and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10-10-2011 Ksn