IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.NO.1 OF 2006 Between : Paleti Vengal Reddy ...APPELLANT A N D S.Basha Moihiddin and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.NO.1 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: The injured is the appellant. Aggrieved by award dated 08.09.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Cuddapah in M.V.O.P.No.42 of 2002, the injured filed this appeal. As against claim of Rs.3,00,000/-, the lower Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the injured. There is no dispute regarding factum of accident and rash and negligent driving of the accident vehicle resulting in injures to the injured. The dispute is only with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal. The lower Tribunal awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the injured for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 2. Ex.A.2 is copy of wood certificate filed by the petitioner, which was issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon in District Hospital, Cuddapah. Immediately after the accident the injured was taken to that hospital. The Doctor found the following injuries on P.W.1: 1) Pain and tenderness on right hip joint. Movements painful and restricted. 2) A reddish oblique, lacerated injury of 5 cm x 1.5 cm x 1 cm on the left ingiral ford. Blood clots present. 3) A reddish, lacerated injury of 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on the left knee. Blood clots present 4) Multiple irregular reddish abrasion on the back of right knee joint. It reads that X-Ray of right thigh and hip showed no fracture. Therefore, the Civil Assistant Surgeon opined that the injuries are simple in nature. He was admitted in that Hospital on 17.03.2002. Subsequently he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool and was admitted in that hospital on 17.05.2002 as inpatient. Ex.X.1 is the case sheet relating to the petitioner in that hospital. P.W.2 who is Doctor in Orthopedic Unit of that Hospital speaks to its contents. Ex.X.1 shows that originally the injured took treatment in that hospital at Kurnool as out patient and subsequently he was admitted as inpatient in that hospital on 17.05.2002. The lower Tribunal discarded the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.X.1 on factual misstatement that name and occupation of the injured are not tallying in the portion of Ex.X.1. On perusal of Ex.X.1, I do not find any such description of the injured as Venugopal Reddy. Name of the injured is Vengal Reddy. Throughout Ex.X.1, case sheet, his name is given as Vengal Reddy only. Neither in Ex.A.2 wood certificate nor in Ex.X.1 case sheet the injured is described as a coolie. He is working as teacher. Therefore, the lower Tribunal erred in not placing reliance on Ex.X.1, case sheet and evidence of P.W.2. It is evidence of P.W.2 that the petitioner was admitted in Government General Hospital, Kurnool, on 17.03.2002 with fracture of body of pubic right and fracture of tibial spine and rupture of Urethra. He says that on 18.03.2002 blood transfusion was given to him. Again he underwent skin grafting on 18.04.2002. From Orthopedic unit, the injured was referred to Urology Department for management of rupture of urethra on 10.05.2002. He says that in Urology Department, the injured was operated on 23.05.2002 by Dr.G.V.Krishna, and was discharged on 30.05.2002. It is further evidence of P.W.2 that because of rupture of urethra, there will be stricture of urethra which causes obstruction to passing urine, which may result in infection to urinary tract and that clinical movements of right knee joint are restricted and painful and that X-ray of Pelvic revealed malunion of fracture with minimal diastasis of pubic joint and that X-ray of knee revealed satisfactory union of tibial spine. Ultimately P.W.2 certified that the injured was having physical disability of about 20% to 25%. 3. Apart from the above medical evidence, the injured had let in medical bills covered by Exs.A.6 to A.8, whose total value is around Rs.10,000/-. He also filed Ex.A.5 salary certificate. The injured was aged 35 years by the date of the accident. He was drawing gross salary of Rs.6,636/- and net salary of Rs.5,888/- as Secondary Grade Teacher in M.P. Elementary School. Having regard to three grievous injuries sustained by the injured, compensation of Rs.15,000/- per each of the said grievous injuries is appropriate towards those injuries including pain and suffering. He can be awarded medical expenditure of Rs.20,000/- towards past as well as future medical expenditure. He was in hospital for 2½ months, for the said period, he can be awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income / leave salary. Further, he is entitled for Rs.5000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.5000/- towards transportation. Apart from that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,30,400/- (Rs.6000 x 12 x 20/100 x 16) for his permanent disability. Thus, total compensation payable comes to Rs.3,20,400/-. But, the claim is only Rs.3,00,000/- and therefore, the compensation amount is limited to that amount. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs granting compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner instead of Rs.25,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the petition in the lower Tribunal. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J NOVEMBER 23, 2010 YVL