IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4528 of 2003 Between: Jogu Roshaiah .. Appellant AND 1. Sama Malla Reddy 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4528 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.1166 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dated 02.09.2003. 2. The appellant then aged 20 years and claimed to be earning Rs.1,500/- per month as a labourer was involved in a motor accident on 30.10.1997 when he and other labourers were proceeding in the tractor and trailer Nos.AP 28T 7294 and 7296. The tractor and trailer was claimed to have been driven rashly and negligently in high speed due to which the appellant fell down from the tractor and trailer and sustained grievous injuries for which he was treated at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. He claimed a compensation of Rs.80,000/- from the owner and insurer of the tractor and trailer. Subsequently, he enhanced his claim to Rs.2,00,000/- by way of an amendment of the claim petition. 3. While the owner of the tractor and trailer remained ex parte, the insurer put the claimant to strict proof of his allegations and contended that the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident, the liability of the insurer to pay compensation and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation. The Tribunal examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-8 and B-1 during the course of enquiry. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of P.W.1 corroborated by Exs.A-1 and A-2, First Information Report and Charge Sheet, in the absence of any contrary evidence and concluded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor and trailer. On the question of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal referred to the evidence of P.W.1, the injured, and P.W.2, the doctor who certified the disability, and also referred to Ex.A-3-Medico Legal Record, Ex.A-4-Discharge Card, Ex.A-5-Disability Certificate, Ex.A-6-Photographs, Ex.A-7-X-ray and Ex.A-8-Medical bills. The Tribunal noted that the doctor who treated P.W.1 was not examined and considered it just and proper to award Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards temporary disability and granted a total compensation of Rs.35,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. 6. The claimant was aggrieved by the meagre compensation awarded and filed the appeal contending that Ex.A-5-Disability Certificate was not taken into account and the Medico Legal Record-Ex.A-3 showed deformity and restricted mobility of right thigh apart from swelling on the left elbow and abrasion on the right knee. These things ought to have made the Tribunal grant the entire compensation claimed. 7. Heard Sri C.S. Chakravarthi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B. Devanand, learned standing counsel for the second respondent/insurer, while the first respondent/owner of the tractor and trailer remained unrepresented before this Court also. 8. The conclusion of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the tractor and trailer driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving remained unchallenged and similarly, the ownership of the tractor and trailer with the first respondent and its subsisting insurance with the second respondent are not in dispute. Both the respondents have to, therefore, jointly and severally pay just and adequate compensation to the claimant for the injuries suffered in the accident and their consequences. 9. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the injured P.W.1 stated that he suffered injuries to the waist apart from the fracture of right leg and was treated as inpatient in the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for 17 days. He claimed to have been subjected to two surgeries. The injured also stated about being discharged from the hospital after the injuries were healed, but still claimed pain and suffering. His claims were corroborated by P.W.2 who, of course, issued Ex.A-5-Disability Certificate in his personal capacity. He found that the post-operative situation of P.W.1 was restriction in the movements of the right hip and right knee with pain and limp while walking. This disability was estimated by him to be 60% and he claimed to have issued Ex.A-5-Disability Certificate only as per the guidelines given in the relevant manual. P.W.2 is a public servant and is not shown to be having any interest or motive in resorting to falsehood to favour P.W.1 and even the earliest version in Ex.A-1-First Information Report showed that P.W.1 was severely injured in the accident. The driver of the tractor and trailer was prosecuted for an offence of causing grievous hurt to P.W.1 as per Ex.A-2-Charge Sheet and the earliest version in the Medico Legal Record under Ex.A-3 itself shows that there was deformity and restricted mobility of the right thigh apart from pain and tenderness in the left elbow and an abrasion over the right knee. The Discharge Card-Ex.A-4 of the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad shows that P.W.1 underwent a surgery on 08.11.1997 and was an inpatient in the hospital from 30.10.1997 to 17.11.1997. He was subjected to surgery in connection with the fracture of shaft of right femur and it was clearly noted that there was abnormal mobility of the right leg. The claims of P.W.2 are, therefore, not deviant from what has been noted in Ex.A-4-Discharge Card of the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and hence, it was probablised by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the documents that P.W.1 suffered one grievous injury and other simple injuries and notwithstanding the treatment taken by him, still was left with restricted mobility of the right leg. The disability in the right leg certified at 60% by P.W.2 may not be of the same percentage with reference to the functioning of the whole body or the avocation of P.W.1 carried on at the time of the accident. But still, the injury and its consequences have to be adequately compensated with reference to the accepted principles. 10. The injured claimant could have been immobilized and prevented from carrying on his avocation atleast for a period of two to three months by the very nature of the fractures suffered by him in the right leg, but the Tribunal did not award any sum towards loss of income for three months. If he were getting Rs.1,500/- as salary from the first respondent, the loss of earnings would be Rs.4,500/- for three months. The salary claimed by P.W.1 cannot be considered excessive even with reference to the minimum wages payable to such labourers at the relevant time and that apart, the Tribunal granted only Rs.20,000/- towards the injuries suffered and Rs.10,000/- towards the disability and did not award any sum towards the attendant charges, extra nourishment, damage to clothing, other inevitable expenses for purchase of medicines, etc., not supplied by the hospital and all those miscellaneous expenses have to be compensated at least by a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the circumstances. On a monthly income of Rs.1,500/- at the relevant time, if the claimant sustained total loss of earning capacity, he would have lost a sum of Rs.3,06,000/- on application of the appropriate multiplier and if the percentage of disability with reference to the restricted movements of the right leg has to be taken as imposing 5% disability with reference to the functioning of the whole body and the avocation of the petitioner, the compensation payable would come to about Rs.15,300/- and deducting Rs.10,000/- already granted by the Tribunal, the balance can be rounded off to about Rs.6,000/-. Considering the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages awardable under various other heads, the compensation already granted at Rs.35,000/- can be reasonably enhanced by another Rs.20,000/-. Given the length of time from which interest has to be paid on the enhanced compensation, it can be restricted to 6% per annum, while proportionate costs shall follow suit. 11. In the result, the award, dated 02.09.2003, in O.P.No.1166 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award. 12. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, accordingly, in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 17th March, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4528 of 2003 Date: 17th March, 2011 KL