THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3067 of 1998 Dated:16.11.2009 Between: Yerabati Suguna, And others. ….Petitioners And Md.Azeemuddin, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3067 of 1998 ORDER: The appeal is by Yerabati Suguna, who is a victim of motor accident that occurred on 14.11.1991 due to a head on collusion between the bus of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) bearing No.AEZ 1680 and a lorry which was insured by the United India Insurance Company. In the said accident, Suguna suffered head injury resulting in loss of eyesight, fracture of moxila, Zygoma, ribs, fracture of both bones of left leg and dislocation of right leg. She instituted O.P.No.291 of 1992 claiming Rs.3,95,760/-. By impugned award dated 31.08.1998 the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, awarded Rs.1,28,500 towards pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. Aggrieved by the same, the appeal was filed. During the pendency of the appeal, Suguna died and appellant Nos.2 to 4 have come on record as legal representatives of the deceased appellant. For the purpose of convenience, the parties in the appeal are referred to by their status before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. In the O.P filed before the Tribunal petitioner claimed damages under two headings, special damages and general damages. Under the first category she claimed Rs.18,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.2,000/- towards transportation to hospital and Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment. Under the general damages, she claimed an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.3,00,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life. In proof of her claim she examined herself as P.W.1 and the Doctor who performed surgery and treated her was examined as P.W.2. She also marked Exs.A1, A2, A10 and A11, FIR, discharge card, pathology report, cash receipt. In addition, she also marked all medical bills as Exs.A3 to A8 and A12 to A117. Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 remained ex parte. The insurer of the lorry and APSRTC – respondent Nos.3 and 6 contested the petition denying the negligence on the part of the driver. They did not lead any oral evidence. Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. The Court Commissioner who was appointed to examine P.W.2 marked Exs.C1 and C2. Considering this evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,28,500/- in the following manner. Rs.22,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.30,000/- towards future treatment, Rs.500/- towards walking stand, Rs.2,000/- for transportation charges, Rs.5,000/- for other injuries and Rs.8,000/- each for three fractures, Rs.10,000/- for the fracture of ribs, Rs.35,000/- towards permanent disability. In this appeal the learned Counsel who appears in support of the appeal contends that the Tribunal erred in not awarding the correct amount towards medical expenses and the amounts for engaging a medical attendant during the period from 15.11.1991 and 22.01.1992 and thereafter. He nextly contends that even if the injured was a housewife, and had no income, the Tribunal erred in awarded low sum towards all the injuries and towards future treatment expenses. These contentions are refuted by the learned Counsel for the other side. In this appeal the evidence of the Doctor – P.W.2 assumes importance. He was examined on commission. He operated on the injured during which rods were inserted in her left leg and hip. In spite of the same, as admitted by P.W.2 in the cross examination after surgery, the fractured bones united very well and the injured sustained 20% partial permanent disability. It may be true that the petitioner suffered fractures almost on all parts of the body, but after surgery her disability was only 20%. This is the important factor to determine the compensation. The injured was a housewife and she had no income. Even if notional income is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month, for 20% disability she would be getting (applying the multiplier 4.5 as she was 65 years of age) not more than Rs.32,000/- In addition to this, hospital expenses, medical expenses, amounts for extra nourishment can also be awarded. The Tribunal came to the conclusion on the amounts to be awarded to the injured. If the method of multiplier is followed, she would be getting far less. As there is no appeal by APSRTC or insurer, it is not necessary to go into the matter. After perusing the evidence and the impugned award, this Court is convinced that the same does not suffer from any error or illegality. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for the above reasons is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 16.11.2009 vs