IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBURARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3701 of 2003 Between: United India Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, Mancherial ..... Appellants And A. Gattaiah and another …Respondents The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.764 of 2000 dated 31-03-2003 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Adilabad. The 1st respondent and others were travelling in a jeep No.AP-1-T-9063 on 23-3-2000 at 1-00 P.M. when near Nagasamudram village, the jeep turned turtle due to the rash and negligent driving in high speed by the driver. The 1st respondent received fractures to the left leg and left hand and injuries on the head, face and all over the body. He was treated at Government Hospital, Luxxettipet and Dandepally police registered Crime No.39 of 2000 against the jeep driver. The 1st respondent, claimed to be aged 40 years and earning Rs.2,500/- per month as agricultural labourer, sued the owner and insurer of the jeep for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The owner of the jeep did not contest, while the insurer put the claimant to strict proof of all his allegations. The insurer claimed the compensation claimed to be excessive. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 during the enquiry. The insurer was granted permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act on an application. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the claims of PW.1 corroborated by Ex.A.1-FIR and Ex.A.2- Charge sheet and concluded that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep. The Tribunal accepted the ownership of the vehicle with the 1st respondent and its subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent on the strength of Ex.A.4-insurance policy and held both the respondents to be jointly and severally liable to justly and adequately compensate the injured-claimant. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal noted that Ex.A.3-Wound Certificate disclosed the first injury to be a fracture and a grievous injury and injuries 2 to 5 to be multiple abrasions and a lacerated wound and simple injuries. The Tribunal, therefore, awarded Rs.25,000/- for the first injury, Rs.20,000/- for injuries 2 to 5, Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses in the absence of medical bills and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. The total compensation of Rs.65,000/- was directed to carry interest at 9% p.a. and also proportionate costs. The insurer challenged the award contending that the non- examination of the doctor to prove any permanent disability was ignored by the Tribunal and medical expenses were granted on surmises without any evidence on record. The person, who issued the wound certificate, also was not examined and the prevailing bank rate was exceeded in granting interest at 9% p.a. The insurer, therefore, desired the impugned award to be reversed. Heard Ms. Y. Aruna, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Ms. B. Sai Priya, learned counsel, representing Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent- claimant. None entered appearance for the owner of the vehicle- 2nd respondent before this court also. Insofar as the finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the jeep driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving and the ownership of the vehicle with the 1st respondent and its subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent are concerned, the parties did not challenge the same in any manner. The joint and several liability of both the respondents to compensate the injured-claimant justly and adequately, therefore, is not in doubt. Coming to the quantum of compensation, grant of Rs.25,000/- towards the fracture of the left tibia and grant of Rs.20,000/- in lump sum towards other three multiple abrasions and a lacerated wound cannot be considered to be excessive in contrast with the damages generally awarded for such injuries. Awarding of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering in respect of five injuries also does not ex facie appear unreasonable. Though the Tribunal also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses without any proof by any documentary evidence, it has to be noted that the Tribunal did not award any sum to the claimant towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment and disablement, which would have been not less than 2 to 3 months given the nature of injuries. The Tribunal also did not award any separate compensation for extra nourishment, damage to clothing, attendant charges, loss of amenities of life temporarily and other inevitable expenses or under any other heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages admissible for the claimant. The lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- granted under the head of medical expenses, if it were to be taken as representing damages under all such heads, the same need not be interfered with at this distance of time. The learned counsel for the appellant attempted to canvass strongly about the non-examination of the doctor, who treated the claimant or who issued Ex.A.3-wound certificate as amounting to not proving the injuries. But, it is seen from the counter filled on behalf of the appellant before the Tribunal that insofar as the receipt of the injuries by the claimant is concerned, along with the other allegations about the details of the claim, the appellant only put the claimant to strict proof by cogent evidence. There was no specific denial of the claim of the claimant suffering such injuries and getting treated for the same and in the absence of such denial, the claim that the claimant suffered injuries shall be deemed to be admitted and admitted facts need not be proved. That apart, that the claimant received severe injuries was stated even in the earliest version in Ex.A.1 and the statutory investigating agency on independent investigation found under Ex.A.2-Charge sheet that the claimant received both grievous and simple injuries in the accident and was treated by the Assistant Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital, Luxxettipet for the said injuries. The contents of Exs.A.1 and A.2 corroborated Ex.A.3 and PW.1 and the basis for grant of compensation cannot be claimed not to exist. Under the circumstances, the amount awarded cannot be interfered with and the appeal has to fail. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 03-02-2011 Ksn