JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.M.A No. 2762 of 2003 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

The first respondent in the appeal is the owner of the offending vehicle. The second respondent is the insurer thereof. The petitioner claimed compensation at Rs.1,50,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 alleging that he sustained two grievous injuries and three simple injuries in an accident caused by the offending Tractor bearing registration No. A.P. 36 T 5572, owned by the first respondent. Admittedly the Tractor was insured with the second respondent. The Tribunal awarded compensation at Rs.40,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred the present appeal.

Smt G. Niveditha, learned counsel representing the petitioner, contended that the petitioner was a uppara mastry i.e. a labourer and that he was bed ridden for a period of three months on account of the injuries sustained by him. She submitted that the appellant ought to have been granted reasonable compensation for loss of income for the period of three months.

Sri B. Naresh, learned counsel for the insurer-second respondent, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner did not prove the injuries as the petitioner did not choose to examine the Doctor who treated him. Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of the injury certificate. Ex.A.6 is the discharge card. Ex.A.7 is the bunch of medical bills. It is the contention of learned counsel for the second respondent that Exs.A.2, A.6 and A.7 were not proved by the petitioner through the Doctor who was the author of Ex.A.2 or some other person concerning with them and that consequently the very injuries have not been made out. The second respondent did not dispute the accident. The second respondent only disputes the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident.

The petitioner as P.W.1 deposed that he sustained two grievous injuries and three simple injuries. The two grievous injuries were the fractures of the Tibia and Fibula of the left leg. Thus both the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner were to his left leg and no other part.

Where petitioner sustained fractures to the lower extremities, there is every amount of justification on the part of the petitioner to contend that the petitioner, who is a labourer, had no alternative but to take bed rest for a period of three months. The Tribunal however did not grant compensation for the loss of income during the period of bed rest of the petitioner.

Where the petitioner was uppara mastry, taking minimum wages into consideration, I deem it appropriate to treat that the petitioner was drawing Rs.3,000/- per month and consequently suffered loss of Rs.9,000/- towards loss of income also apart from the amount of compensation that was already awarded by the Tribunal.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal consequently is allowed in part enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by Rs.9,000/- towards loss of income. The petitioner shall be entitled to interest over the enhanced amount at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. There shall be no order as to costs. Dt.16th July, 2012. VJL _____________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR