HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A. No. 323 of 2003 DATED: 04.02.2011 Between: Murari Prabhakar ………………Appellant Vs. 1. K.Ravi 2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Mukarampura 3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Warangal ………….Respondents JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the orders, dated 31.10.2002 passed in O.P. No.982 of 2001 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Warangal whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation amount of Rs.2,36,950/- in favour of the appellant-claimant, against his claim of Rs.3,00,000/-, the claimant has preferred this appeal. The facts of the case in brief are that on 02.03.2001, at about 2.00 p.m., while the claimant and one Mekala Narsaiah, after completing their work, were returning from Parkal to Bhupally on a Scooter, and when they reached near Gangarai Cheruvu, on the outskirts of Rupureddipally village, Regonda Mandal, the 1st respondent, who is the owner-cum-driver of an Auto bearing No.AP36 U 8112 drove the Auto in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and lost control over it and hit the Scooter, as a result, the claimant sustained fracture of right femur, right patella, right tibia and fibula and simple injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal, where he was treated as in-patient up to 21.03.2001 and he underwent operation, and the doctors advised him to take bed rest for six months. According to him, in spite of long treatment and spending huge amounts and taking rest as advised by the doctors, he could not become normal person and there is shortening of his right leg and walking by limping and has become permanently disabled. Hence, the claimant filed O.P. No. 982 of 2001 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The 3rd respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited, Warangal field a counter affidavit denying the allegations of the petition and contended that the accident took place on account of rash and negligence on the part of Narsaiah, who rode the Scooter. It is further contended that the injuries received by the claimant did not result in any disability and he is able to do his caste profession, but is claiming excessive compensation. It is further contended that as there is violation of policy conditions, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant and the petition against it is liable to be dismissed. To substantiate the case of the claimant, he got examined himself as PW1 besides examining another as PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. Nobody was examined nor got marked any documents on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the evidence both oral and documentary awarded a sum of Rs.2,36,950/-. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant. Even though the matter is posted today under the caption “For Orders”, the learned counsel for the respondents is not present nor is made any representation on his behalf. Hence, this Court is inclined to dispose of the matter on merits. The only issued involved in this appeal is that out of the total compensation of Rs.2,36,950/-, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,16,403/- towards loss of earnings on account of 40% disability being suffered by the appellant-claimant. However, since the claim of the petitioner under this head is Rs.1,75,000/-, the Tribunal has restricted the amount to the extent of Rs,1,75,000/- only. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant in support of his contention, has relied on a decision reported in P.Satyanarayana Vs. I.B.R.Prasad[1], wherein this Court held that as long as the total claim has not exceeded, claims under one head or sub-head can be shifted from one to the other in awarding non-pecuniary losses for pain, suffering and loss of amenities, since there is distinction between the rich and the poor and the distinction between functional and full compensation. The learned counsel has submitted that this Court has all powers to grant the amount under any head even if it exceeds the amount claimed by the claimants since the Court is required to award or grant just and reasonable compensation. From a careful perusal of the evidence on record, it is apparent that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, who is the driver-cum-owner of Auto bearing No. AP36 U 8112 and this fact is neither rebutted nor contradicted by the respondents by any supporting evidence. Further, from the evidence of PW2 – Dr.Kali Prasad coupled with Ex.A3 – Disability certificate, Ex.A4 – Discharge Card of M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal and Ex.A5 – Discharge Card of Uday Clinic, it is evident that the claimant is suffering from 40% permanent disability and this fact is also not denied by the respondents. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the difference of the amount of Rs.2,16,403/- and Rs.1,75,000/-, which is awarded by the Tribunal under the head “future loss of earnings” may be accommodated under the head “inter alia medical expenses”. Since the appellant-claimant is stated to have taken bed-rest for six months after prolonged treatment including operation and that his right leg is also stated to have been shortened and he is walking by limping and also having regard to the nature of other injuries sustained by him, the amount of difference which comes to Rs.41,403/- is considered to be appropriate under the head “inter alia medical expenses”. Hence, this appeal is allowed and the claimant is granted a total compensation of Rs.2,78,353/- (Rs.2,36,950/- awarded by the Tribunal + Rs.41,403/- which is the difference amount of Rs.2,16,403/- and Rs.1,75,000/- as claimed by the claimant). However, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. is liable to be reduced and the same is hereby reduced to 7.5% p.a. on the enhanced amount in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard. No order as to costs. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J 04.02.2011 bcj [1] 1987 (2) ALT 328