IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.316 OF 2008 Between: M.Muralidhar Reddy …Appellant A n d Md.Sabeer and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.316 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.09.2007 in O.P.No.738 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVII-Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the said claim application filed by the appellant herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was allowed-in- part, awarding compensation of Rs.2,49,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The appellant herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.02.2005. According to the claimant, on that day, while he was proceeding on a Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No.AP 28 N 629 from Gadwal towards Atmakur, an auto bearing No.AP 22 U 8017, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant in Amarchintha village, as a result of which the claimant sustained multiple fracture injuries and also head injury which were all grievous and that he was shifted to Government Hospital, Atmakur and from there taken to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad where he underwent treatment as inpatient and also continued further treatment at a private hospital at Arudra Pavani Memorial Nursing Home. 4. The 1st respondent-owner of the auto remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-20 were marked on behalf of the claimant. R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked on behalf of the insurer. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver. The said finding is not challenged by way of any appeal by the respondents. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,49,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Not satisfied with the same, the claimant preferred the present appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation. 7. The medical evidence on record would establish that the claimant suffered fracture of right humerus on right ulna and compound fracture of frontal bone and a head injury and a radial nurve palsy, which are all grievous in nature. P.W.2, Assistant Professor and Orthopaedic Surgeon in NIMS Hospital, testified to the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and further deposed that the claimant underwent multiple surgeries. The evidence on record also shows that the claimant was treated in Neuro Surgery department for the head injury as can be seen from the evidence of P.W.3, the Assistant Professor of Neuro Surgery at NIMS. P.W.4, the doctor of Arudra Pavani Memorial Nursing Home, testified that the claimant was treated in their hospital from 20.02.2005 to 28.02.2005. Thus, the evidence on record shows that the claimant was treated as inpatient in different hospitals over a period of about one month after the accident. 8. It is stated that the claimant was working as Assistant Engineer in Government Service and that he was on medical leave for about 50 days vide Ex.A-12 leave certificate. Based on the salary certificate Ex.A-11, the Tribunal awarded Rs.13,000/- towards loss of past income for the period of commuted leave on medical grounds and the same is considered to be just and reasonable. It is not disputed that subsequently the claimant has rejoined duty and so there is no loss of any future earnings. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that P.W.4, the doctor at Arudra Pavani Memorial Nursing Home, testified that the injuries have resulted in physical disability of 10 to 20% but the Tribunal failed to award any compensation in that regard. Admittedly, the claimant has not filed any certificate of disability issued by any competent medical board or authority duly assessing the impact of the injuries on the physical and functional capacities of the claimant. On the other hand, the claimant has rejoined duty and is earning his regular emoluments attached to his post. The question of granting any compensation towards loss of earning capacity, based on the alleged physical disability, does not, therefore, arise. However, as the injuries suffered by the claimant were multiple fractures and grievous in nature, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards loss of amenities of life. In the absence of any appeal by the respondents questioning the same, it is considered that the said amount shall remain undisturbed. 9. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. As the evidence on record shows that the claimant suffered five grievous injuries, it is held that he is entitled for a sum of R.25,000/- towards pain and suffering at the rate of Rs.5,000/- for each grievous injury. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment, which are both considered just and reasonable. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, he is held entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges as he must have requisitioned the services of some attendant during the period of hospitalization. 10. The claimant has produced bunch of medical bills Ex.A-6 showing an expenditure of Rs.46,509/-, but the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards medical expenses. In view of the medical bills produced by the claimant, he is entitled for the said amount of Rs.46,509/-. P.W.4 testified that the claimant needs to undergo plastic surgery for the deformity on the forehead due to the head injury and the approximate expenditure estimated is Rs.1,25,000/-. He also testified that the claimant needs to undergo another surgery for removal of nails on the right forearm and right humerus for which the estimated cost is Rs.35,000/-. Thus, the claimant is required to spend approximately Rs.1,60,000/- towards future medical expenses. However, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,25,000/- without disclosing any reason for making the said reduction. In view of the medical evidence to the effect that the approximate cost of the future surgeries would be around Rs.1,60,000/-, it is considered just and reasonable to award the said amount, without making any reduction. It is stated that the claimant has incurred an expenditure of Rs.16,870/- towards hospital charges for his treatment at Arudra Pavani Memorial Nursing Home vide Ex.A-9 bill and the same is rightly awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,51,379/-, rounded off to Rs.3,51,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition and at 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing the appeal. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 11. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 16th November, 2011 Lrkm.