IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1953 of 2002 Between: Bollimunthala Venkata Subbaiah .. Appellant AND Sk. Masood and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 30-01-2002 in O.P.No.227 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. The appellant was travelling in Nissan Carrier No.AP-10 T 5965 along with his cattle on 24-01-1998 and at about 5.30A.M., in the outskirts of Narkatpally, the vehicle dashed against a stationed lorry from behind due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle. The appellant suffered multiple fractures in the right leg and an injury on the back of the left knee. He was treated at Head Quarters Hospital, Nalgonda, and then at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where he was an inpatient for 70 days. Even later he had to get treatment at St. Theresa’s Charity Hospital, Yerragadda, on six occasions. The appellant claimed to be earning Rs.5,000/- per month from his Dairy Farm and hence, claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- initially and Rs.2,00,000/- after amendment of the claim through I.A.No.939 of 2000 ordered on 11-07-2001. The owner and insurer of the vehicle contested the claim denying the manner of accident, the injuries sustained, their consequences and their liability to compensate the claimant. The insurer further claimed that the appellant travelling in a goods vehicle is not entitled to any compensation. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation. It examined PW.1 during the enquiry and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 and X.1. It rendered the impugned award accepting Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2-Charge Sheet as proving the negligent driving of the vehicle to be the cause for the accident. The Tribunal also noted that Ex.A.6-Insurance policy proves the ownership of the vehicle with the 1st respondent and its subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal referred to the oral and documentary evidence extensively and concluded that the appellant suffered 30% disability due to shortening of left leg and other consequences and opining that the appellant lost his earnings for a period of 15 years in future at his age of 45 years and noting that he is not able to sit on the ground due to the fractures and insertion of steel rods leaving a permanent discomfort, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to fix the compensation for the injury and future loss at Rs.50,000/-, apart from the loss of income for six months at Rs.9,000/-. The attendant charges were granted at Rs.3,000/-, expenses for extra nourishment were awarded at Rs.5,000/- and pain and suffering were sought to be compensated with Rs.5,000/-. Transport charges were calculated at Rs.2,000/-, while the medical bills were permitted to be reimbursed only to a tune of Rs.20,000/- as against Rs.53,000/-. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.94,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of deposit and proportionate costs. The appellant challenges the said award in this appeal contending that the expenditure incurred by him and to be incurred by him towards treatment should have been fully compensated, more so, in the light of production of the medical bills to a tune of Rs.53,000/-. Criticizing the compensation awarded to be very meagre, the claimant desired the entire sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to be granted. Heard Sri M. Venkatarama Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N.V. Jagannath, learned standing counsel for the insurer. None entered appearance for the 1st respondent before this Court. The respondents did not challenge the conclusion of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident being with the driver of the offending vehicle or the ownership of the vehicle with the 1st respondent and its subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent. The appellant was travelling in the vehicle as the owner of the cattle and hence, any violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy of the goods vehicle does not arise. That leaves only the question as to the quantum of compensation to which the claimant is entitled. The only witness examined being the claimant himself, his evidence has to be assessed with reference to the documents filed by him in this regard. Ex.A.4-Medical Certificate, Ex.A.5- Discharge Cards of St. Theresa Hospital, Ex.A.8-Disability Certificate, Ex.A.9-Bunch of medical bills and Ex.A.10-bunch of X-Ray films support the claims of PW.1 about the injuries suffered, the treatment taken and the consequences still left. The bunch of medical bills consisting of 249 bills were issued by St. Theresa’s Hospital and Pharmacists in the premises of Gandhi Hospital or opposite to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and there is absolutely no explicable reason for not admitting the entire expenditure of Rs.53,784/- covered by Ex.A.9-bunch of medical bills, more so, when the genuineness of Ex.A.9-bills was not the subject of any cross-examination by the insurer. The claims of PW.1 about the period and places of treatment are corroborated by Ex.A.4, Ex.A.5, Ex.X.1 and Ex.A.9. In the absence of any reason to doubt the quantum of expenditure that must have been incurred by the claimant during such prolonged treatment, the entire sum covered by Ex.A.9-bills ought to have been reimbursed by the Tribunal for the rejection of which no reason was assigned by it. Insofar as the transport charges at Rs.2,000/-, nourishment charges of Rs.5,000/-, attendant charges at Rs.3,000/-, loss of income for six months and pain and suffering are concerned, the quantification of the compensation by the Tribunal does not appear to be low except regarding pain and suffering due to the multiple fractures. But, insofar as the compensation for the injury and future loss at Rs.50,000/- is concerned, the Tribunal can be considered to have been liberal though PW.1 did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim of earning Rs.5,000/- per month from his Dairy Farm. It should also be noted that 30% disability in respect of a limb could not have been considered as 30% functional disability in respect of whole body, and therefore, any deficiency in the compensation for pain and suffering can be considered to have been taken care of in the assessment of the compensation for the injury and future loss. Under the circumstances, the compensation should be upgraded only in respect of actual medical bills proved to a tune of Rs.33,784/- rounded off to Rs.34,000/-. Such enhanced sum should also carry interest and proportionate costs. But, considering that such interest has to be paid by the respondents from the date of petition in 1998 for a period of almost 12 years, it can be restricted to 6% p.a. Accordingly, the award dated 30-01-2002 in O.P.No.227 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, is modified by enhancing the compensation by Rs.34,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award. No further directions need be given regarding disbursement of the compensation at this distance of time and the appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 30-09-2010 Ksn