Judgment : 1. Aggrieved by the Award dated 16-09-2008 in OP No.492 of 2006 passed by XVII Additional Chief Judge–cum-II Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) both the claimants and Insurance Company preferred MACMA Nos.285 and 3794 of 2009 respectively. Since both the appeals arise out of common award, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The parties in the appeals are referred as they stood before the Tribunal. 2. The factual matrix of the case is thus: On 17.08.2005 at about 8.30 am when the claimant along with his daughter and son-in-law was proceeding in Maruthi Car bearing No.AP 9N 6471 being driven by his son-in-law from Hyderabad towards Kurnool and on the way near Pebbair Village in Mahaboobnagar District, a Toyota vehicle bearing No.AP 16 DL. TR 1141 came in the opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the car and thus caused the accident. The son-in-law of the claimant died and the claimant suffered grievous injuries i.e., fracture to his right humerus, fracture mandible and fracture proximal px right middle finger besides other injuries. The claimant is an old man of more than 70 years and he suffered a lot due to the fracture injuries in his old age. He was treated in Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. It is averred that he suffered disability in his hip region. It is further averred that the accident was occurred due to the fault of Toyota driver. On these pleas, the claimant filed O.P. No.492 of 2006 against the respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle and claimed Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation under different heads mentioned in the OP. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 contested the O.P. denying all the material averments in the petition urging to put the claimant in strict proof of the same. During trial, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A15 were marked on behalf of claimant. Policy copy filed by 2nd respondent was marked as Ex.B1. A perusal of the award would show that the Tribunal having regard to the oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A1–FIR and Ex.A2-Charge sheet, has held that the Toyota driver was responsible for the accident. In this regard, the Tribunal did not accept the plea of Insurance Company on the contributory negligence of the car driver. A perusal of the award would show that the Tribunal having regard to the oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A1–FIR and Ex.A2-Charge sheet, has held that the Toyota driver was responsible for the accident. In this regard, the Tribunal did not accept the plea of Insurance Company on the contributory negligence of the car driver. Then issue No.2 touching the quantum of compensation is concerned, having regard to the fracture injuries suffered by the claimant at his old age and consequent disability, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a under different heads as follows: Medical expenditure Rs. 1,39,841-00 Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000-00 Loss of amenities Rs. 5,000-00 Total Rs. 1,64,841-00 (rounded of to Rs.1,65,000/-) Hence the appeal by claimant on the ground of inadequacy of compensation whereas the appeal by Insurance Company on the ground of its exorbitance.3) Heard arguments of Sri C.Vikram Chandra, learned counsel for appellant/claimant in M.A.C.M.A No.285 of 2009, Sri Bhaskar Poluri, learned counsel for R.2/Insurance Company in MACMA No.285 of 2009 and Sri N.Mohan Krishna, learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A. No.3794 of 2009. Though notice to the owner of the vehicle was served he did not appear. 4 a) Challenging the award, learned counsel for the Insurance Company firstly argued that it is a case of collision between two vehicles and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the responsibility on both the drivers equally. On the aspect of contributory negligence, he relied upon the decision reported in Agnuru Jaya Ramulu vs. Mohammed Afzal Miyan ( 2004 (6) ALD 734 ) which was cited before the Tribunal. He further argued that in the connected O.P.No.438 of 2006, the Tribunal held that there was negligence on the part of both the drivers and apportioned the liability 50: 50. He thus, prayed to apportion the liability between the drivers. b). Secondly, learned counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in admitting Rs.1,09,000/- (Ex.A.5) towards hospital bill. Except PW.2—doctor, whose signature is missing on Ex.A15—discharge summary, the claimant has not examined any other witness to prove his medical expenditure. So, it is highly doubtful whether PW.2 treated the claimant since his signatures are not there on Ex.A15. Consequently his evidence that Exs.A3 to A7—bills and other documents were issued by Yashoda Hospital also cannot be believed. Except PW.2—doctor, whose signature is missing on Ex.A15—discharge summary, the claimant has not examined any other witness to prove his medical expenditure. So, it is highly doubtful whether PW.2 treated the claimant since his signatures are not there on Ex.A15. Consequently his evidence that Exs.A3 to A7—bills and other documents were issued by Yashoda Hospital also cannot be believed. Mere filing of the document is not sufficient and it must be cogently proved. On this aspect he relied upon United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Mohd. Khaj Rasool Sayyed @ Mohd. Khaja Main Shaik and another ( 2003 (5) ALD 162 ). c) Thirdly, he submitted that the trial Court rightly rejected certain expenditures like physiotherapy expenditure, home nursing charges etc., as there is no proper supporting evidence except filing bills. He thus, prayed to allow the appeal and apportion the liability between the drivers on one hand and reduce the compensation as submitted by him on the other. 5. a) Per contra, learned counsel for claimant/appellant firstly argued that as per counter, the case of respondent-Insurance Company was that the accident was occurred due to fault of car driver alone and it was not his case that both the vehicles had a head on collision and both were responsible for the accident. When no such plea was taken and no evidence whatsoever was adduced by the Insurance Company, it is preposterous for it now to introduce the plea of head on collision so as to wriggle out of its liability atleast to some extent. Learned counsel argued that in the evidence of PW.1, he clearly deposed that before accident his son-in-law was driving the car slowly on the extreme left side of the road and at that time the Toyota driver went on its wrong side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the car. In view of this evidence and non-examination of Toyota driver, the plea of head on collision may be rejected. b) Secondly, learned counsel argued that the trial Court rightly admitted Ex.A5 – hospital charges and awarded Rs.1,09,000/- as a part of medical expenditure. PW.2 was part of the team of Doctors who treated the claimant and Ex.A15—discharge summary contains his name also. So merely because he did not sign, it cannot be concluded that he has nothing to do with the treatment. PW.2 was part of the team of Doctors who treated the claimant and Ex.A15—discharge summary contains his name also. So merely because he did not sign, it cannot be concluded that he has nothing to do with the treatment. PW.2 clearly avouched that Yashoda Hospital issued bills and documents covered by Exs.A3 to A7. Hence, Ex.A5 was amply proved. c) Thirdly, challenging the compensation as inadequate, learned counsel argued that the Tribunal considering 40% disability of the claimant ought to have granted considerable compensation. Further, the Tribunal failed to grant any compensation for meeting future medical expenditure for removal of implants. Similarly, the Tribunal ought to have admitted the expenditure incurred by the claimant towards physiotherapy and home nursing charges. So also the Tribunal has not granted just compensation for loss of comforts due to fracture mandible and humerus at his old age and the Tribunal granted a meager sum of Rs.5,000/- only. Similarly, the Tribunal has not granted adequate amount towards pain and suffering, extra nourishment and attendant charges. He thus, prayed that just compensation may be awarded on the aforesaid items by allowing the appeal. 6. In the light of the above rival arguments, the point for determination in these two appeals is: “Whether the award passed by the Tribunal is legally and factually sustainable?” 7. POINT: The accident, involvement of maruthi car bearing No.AP 9 N 6471 and Toyota vehicle bearing No. AP 16 DLTR 1141 and injuries to the claimant and death of his son-in-law are all admitted facts. The first point raised by the Insurance Company is about head on collision between the two vehicles. On a careful perusal of the facts and evidence, I am unable to appreciate this argument. The version of the insurance company in page No.5 of its counter was that the car driver alone was responsible for the accident. It has not taken any specific plea that both the vehicles had a head on collision and hence both of them were at fault. This plea is introduced for the first time in the appeal. 8. Coming to evidence of PW.1 who is the victim of the accident, he clearly deposed that before accident his son-in-law drove the car slowly on the extreme left side of the road and the Toyota Car driver went on the wrong side of the road and caused the accident by his rash and negligent driving. 8. Coming to evidence of PW.1 who is the victim of the accident, he clearly deposed that before accident his son-in-law drove the car slowly on the extreme left side of the road and the Toyota Car driver went on the wrong side of the road and caused the accident by his rash and negligent driving. In the cross examination, he denied the suggestion that his son-in-law was responsible for the accident. Except this suggestion, nothing specific could be extracted to impeach the credibility of the evidence of PW.1. His evidence was corroborated by the Ex.A2—charge sheet, whereunder, after independent investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the Toyota driver. Against this oral and documentary evidence neither the insurance company nor the owner of the Toyota vehicle adduced any contra evidence. So the evidence on record clearly established that the Toyota driver was responsible for the accident. Hence the argument of the insurance company in this context is rejected. The cited decision(1 supra) will not advance its case. In that case, having regard to the facts and evidence, it was observed that there was head on collision between the two vehicles inferring the fault of both the drivers. But here the evidence is that the Toyota vehicle went on wrong side and dashed the car. So, it was not a head on collision on the middle of the road so as to infer fault on the car driver also. a) The submission that in connected O.P. the liability was apportioned between the two vehicles will not help the insurance company because the said judgment of another Tribunal will not have any binding force on the other Tribunal. The insurance company ought to have taken steps to get all the matters decided by a single Tribunal so as to avoid conflicting judgments. 9. The next argument of Insurance Company is that the Tribunal erred in granting Ex.A5 hospital charges of Rs.1,09,000/- without there being any cogent proof. This argument also does not hold water because PW-2, Dr.Satish Reddy of Yashoda Hospital who treated the claimant deposed that Exs.A3 to A7 were issued by Yashoda Hospital. It is true that on Ex.A15—discharge summary, he did not sign but his name is mentioned as one of the consultants on Ex.A15. Therefore, there can be no demur that PW.2 was part of the treatment. It is true that on Ex.A15—discharge summary, he did not sign but his name is mentioned as one of the consultants on Ex.A15. Therefore, there can be no demur that PW.2 was part of the treatment. Since he deposed about the medical bills, the trial Court rightly admitted Ex.A5. 10. Then coming to the aspect of enhancement of compensation. On perusal of the award, I am of the view that the claimant deserves enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal granted only Rs.20,000/- for three factures suffered by claimant i.e., fracture humerus (right), fracture proximal px right middle finger and fracture mandible at an advanced age of the claimant. Hence considering their gravity at that age, compensation is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. 11. As rightly contended by the claimant, the Tribunal has not granted any amount for extra nourishment and attendant charges. It must not be forgotten that the claimant underwent inpatient treatment in Yashoda Hospital quite for sometime. So he must have required good nourishment, coupled with assistance of an attendant. In such consideration, he is awarded Rs.10,000/-. 12. Though the claimant seeks compensation for physiotherapy, except producing bills, he has not examined concerned person who issued Ex.A13—physiotherapy bills. Hence, the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim under the said head. 13. Then the future medical expenditure is concerned, PW.2 deposed that the claimant needs surgery for removal of implants in the right hand for which he may have to spend about Rs.60,000/-. In Ex.A15 also it was mentioned that Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF) of right humerus + ORIF and plating of mandible was done. Since the future medical expenses is only an estimate, the claimant is awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/-for meeting the said expenditure. 14.Then regarding the loss of amenities, the Tribunal though observed that the claimant feels discomfort due to loss of teeth and restriction of movements of hip joint granted only Rs.5,000/-, which in my considered view is a low amount. Hence the same is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal rightly rejected the compensation for loss of income since there is no monetary loss due to his disability as the claimant was a pensioner by the date of accident. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimant under different heads can be stated thus: Medical expenditure Rs. 1,39,841-00 Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000-00 Attendant charges and extra nourishment Rs. 10,000-00 Future medical expenses Rs. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimant under different heads can be stated thus: Medical expenditure Rs. 1,39,841-00 Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000-00 Attendant charges and extra nourishment Rs. 10,000-00 Future medical expenses Rs. 20,000-00 (rounded of to Rs.2,15,000/-) Loss of comforts Rs. 15,000-00 Total Rs. 2,14,841- 00 Hence the compensation is enhanced by Rs.50,000/- (Rs.2,15,000/- minus Rs.1,65,000/-). 15. In the result, both the MACMAs are disposed of as follows: 1) MACMA No.285 of 2009 filed by the claimant is partly allowed and compensation is enhanced by Rs.50,000/- with proportionate costs. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of OP till the date of realisation. The respondents in the OP are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them. 1. MACMA No.3794 of 2009 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. 2. No order as to costs in both the appeals. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.