Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Ramireddi Thirupal Reddy And Anr. on 7 August, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1(1989)ACC166
JUDGMENT A. Lakshmana Rao, J.
1. These four appeals arise out of the common order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddapah dated 11-1-1982 in OP. Nos. 86 and 87 of 1980. C.M.A. No. 327 of 1982 and CM.A. No. 664 of 1984 arise out of O.P. No. 87 of 1980 and C.M.A. Nos. 336 and 607 of 1982 arise out of OP. No. 86 of 1980. C.M.A. Nos. 327 and 336 of 1982 were filed by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, whereas C.M.A. No. 607 of 1982 and C.M.A. No 664 of 1984 were filed by the claimants.
2. The claimants were travelling by A.P.S.R.T.C. bus on 16-5-1980 from Pulivendla to Kadiri. The bus met with an accident and both the claimants sustained injuries as a result of that accident. Therefore, they filed OP. Nos. 86 and 87 of 1980 in the Tribunal for Motor Accidents Claims, Cuddapah, claiming compensation under various heads such as permanent disability, loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, medical expenses etc. Both the O.Ps. were clubbed together for the purpose of trial. Seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioners and two witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent-Corporation. Exhs. A-1 to A-132 were marked on behalf on the claimants and no exhibits were marked on behalf of the respondent. The injured persons got themselves examined as PWs 1 and 2. The driver of the bus was examined as R W 2.
3. PW 1, the petitioner in O.P. No. 86 of 1980, deposed that the bus left Pulivendla at about 3 p.m. and met with an accident at a distance of about 3 km. from Pulivendla. At that time, the bus was overcrowded and about 100 passengers were travelling in the bus. The bus dashed against a cuivert and, due to the impact, it jumped to a height of 2 feet and thereafter touched the ground with a jerk. PW 2 also deposed to the same effect. PWs 1 and 2 stated that both of them had become unconscious due to the accident. RW 1 is the Traffic Inspector working in the A.P.S.R.T.C. He was travelling in the bus on that day. He deposed that, after the bus passed through Pulivendla, it was stopped at a distance of 2 or 3 km. from Pulivendla for the purpose of checking tickets. After the check was over, the bus started. After travelling 2 or 3 furlongs, there was some sound and the bus fell down. He stated that he did not observe whether the bus had fallen on the culvert. The driver, RW 2, stated that the bus was overloaded at the time of accident. When the bus was nearing the bridge which was 10 feet in width, he heard some sound and applied the brakes. According to him, the brakes did not work and, in the meanwhile, he saw a bullock-cart coming in the opposite direction. Therefore, he swerved the bus to the left. Then the bus dashed against the culvert and fell on the left side. Due to the accident, some persons travelling in the bus died and some others sustained injuries. Having regard to the evidence referred to above, there can be no doubt that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus.
4. The next question that arises for consideration is as to the compensation to be paid to the claimants.
C.M.A. Nos. 336 and 607 of 1982
5. PW 1, the petitioner in O.P. No. 86 of 1980, was aged 36 years at the time the accident took place. The doctors who treated PW 1 were examined. PW 5 was the Woman Assistant Surgeon of the Government Hospital, Pulivendla. She testified that, on 16-5-1980, PW 1 was brought to her hospital having been injured in a bus accident and at that time he was under spinal shock. She also stated that he was semi-conscious and was unable to answer the question. She issued the wound certificate, Exh. A-101. Under her advice on the very same night PW 1 was taken to Madras for expert treatment and, after discharge from the Madras Hospital, he was again admitted in the Government Hospital at Pulivendla on 17-7-1980 as an inpatient for bed sores and urinary infection. Up to 15-9-1980, he was under treatment in that hospital, Exhs. A-86 to A-91 are the medical bills.
6. PW 6 is a doctor doing medical practice at Talupula, the native place of PW 1. He deposed that PW 1 was under his treatment from 21-9-1980 till he went to the hospital at Vellore. Exhs. A-97 and A-98 are the certificates issued by him. He had given physiotherapy, care of the bladders, care of the bowels and supportive therapy to PW 1. He referred in his evidence to the medical expenses incurred by PW 1 in undergoing treatment under him.
7. The Tribunal categorically observed in its order that PW 1 was not in a position to walk and he had been carried into the court-hall by two persons. PW 5 deposed in her cross-examination that PW 1 was a paralytic patient and, therefore, she allowed him to have the assistance of attendants in the hospital.
8. PW 1 claimed a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 30,000/- for continuing permanent disability and Rs. 2,165/-for extra nourishment. Under those three heads, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/-. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 9,000/- towards loss of marital life and he was awarded Rs. 5,000/-. For the amount spent towards the attendants, the claim made was Rs. 10,000/-and the amount awarded by the Tribunal was Rs. 5000/-. Towards loss of earning power, he claimed altogether a sum of Rs. 1,03,000/- and the Tribunal awarded Rs 10,000/-. Towards medical expenses incurred by him, though he claimed Rs. 22,000/-, he was awarded Rs. 20,000/-. Thus, altogether, the Tribunal determined the amount of compensation at Rs. 55,000/- and reduced this to Rs. 50,000/- as the amount was being paid in lump sum.
9. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the claimant that the claimant was aged only 36 years at the time of the accident and he suffered permanent total disability resulting in 100 per cent loss of earning capacity. In those circumstances, according to the learned Counsel, the Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs. 50,000/-, which was grossly inadequate having regard to the earnings of the claimant at the time of the accident. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Corporation that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was on the high side and under no circumstances shall more compensation be awarded to the claimant. The evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant revealed that he owned 14 acres of land and he was growing mulberry trees. He was a Director of the Super Bazar at Talupula and he was also the Secretary of the Junior College Committee. PW 1 deposed that he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per year on groundnut business and Rs. 15,000/- per year on mulberry business. He further stated that he was getting an income of Rs. 15,000/- from the lands owned by him. Due to the permanent disability suffered by him, he was unable to attend to the business as well as the agriculture and as a result of that, he sustained loss of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per year on agriculture for want of his personal supervision. He was deprived of the earnings from the business.
10. 10. From the evidence of PW 5, the doctor who treated PW 1, it is evident that PW 1, was admitted in the hospital at Pulivendla on 16-5-1980 when the accident took place and when he was brought to the hospital, he was under a spinal shock. He was semi-conscious and was not able to answer questions. On the advice of PW 1 was shifted to Madras for expert treatment. After discharge from the Madras Hospital, he was admitted again in the Government Hospital, Pulivendla on 17-7-1980 as an inpatient. He was treated for a period of two months up to 15-9-1980 there. Then he underwent treatment from 21-9-1980 till he went for further treatment to the hospital at Vellore on 19-6-1981. Exh. A-132, the medical certificate issued by the Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore, discloses that PW 1 suffered traumatic paraplegia T-10 level with pressure sores. He had undergone plastic surgery under general anaesthesia on 27-7-1981 for the pressure sores. At the time his evidence was recorded by the Tribunal, he was unable to walk and he was carried into the court-hall by two persons.
11. Having regard to the evidence referred to above, the age of the claimant at the time of the accident, the permanent disability suffered by him resulting in total loss of earning capacity, and his earnings at the time he sustained injuries, I determine the amount of compensation payable to him under different heads as follows : for the continued permanent disability, pain and suffering and extra nourishment, the claimant shall be paid a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- which in my view, will be reasonable, instead of Rs. 15,000/- as determined by the Tribunal. The claimant underwent treatment in different hospitals ever since he met with accident as is evident from the evidence of PWs 5 and 6, the doctors.
12. I do not see any ground to interfere with the amount of Rs. 5000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of marital life. So also I see no ground to interfere with the amount of Rs. 5000/- determined by the Tribunal as compensation towards expenses incurred by him in engaging attendants.
13. Regarding compensation payable for loss of earning power and for loss of earnings during the period he underwent the treatment, I am of the view that the amount of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- determined by the Tribunal is too low. The claimant was owning 14 acres of land and he was doing business in groundnut and mulberry. Having regard to the permanent total disability suffered by him resulting in total loss of earning capacity and his age at the time of the accident, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- would be reasonable compensation payable to him towards loss of earning power for the rest of his life expecting that he would survive up to the age of 60 years. He was only 36 at the time of accident. As to the medical expenses incurred by him, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 20,000/-; and that does not warrant any interference having regard to the evidence on record. The Tribunal was not justified in reducing the compensation awarded by it by Rs. 5,000/- on the ground that the amount was being in a lump sum. The compensation was being paid towards not only the pain and suffering undergone by him and the loss of earning power, but also the actual expenses incurred by him in engaging attendants and to defray the medical charges and cost of medicine. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 5,000/- deducted by the Tribunal is not proper and reasonable. Hence the total amount of compensation payable to the claimant would be Rs. 75,000/-. The respondent Corporation shall pay that amount to the claimant. The Corporation shall pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of this judgment till the date of realisation and shall pay interest at 12 per cent per annum on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal instead of 9 per cent from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date on which the amount was paid.
C.M.A. No. 327 of 1982 and C.M.A. No. 664 of 1984.
14. In these cases, the injured person was PW 2. He was aged 46 years at the time of the accident. He claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000/-towards loss of earning power, pain and suffering etc., and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for the period 16-5-1980 to 16-11-1980 when he was under treatment. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of earning capacity. Rs. 2,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 966/- for medical expenses. Thus, altogether he was awarded a compensation of Rs. 7,966/-. He owned 17 acres of land. He deposed that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/-from his lands.
15. PW3 is the doctor who attended on the claimant. He deposed that he conducted an operation upon him on 25-9-1980. He deposed that PW 2 was in the hospital till 27-6-1980 and afterwards he was attending as an outpatient. Exh. A-123 is the certificate issued by PW 3 on 23-9-1980. It shows that the upper limbs of PW 2 and the motor power in all the muscles was of Grade 3, and he was not able to grip and hold. The motor power of the lower limbs was of grade 4, and though he was able to walk, his gait was unsteady. PW 3 estimated the loss of earning capacity of PW 2 at 80 per cent because of the traumatic quadriplegia which is a permanent disability. He also spoke about the medical expenses incurred by PW 2.
16. PW 4, the village Karnam, deposed that PW 2 owned 17 acres of dry land and that the net yield from the lands was Rs. 10,000/- to 12,000/-per year.
17. In view of the evidence referred to above, I do not see any ground to interfere with the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal regarding medical expenses. So far as the pain and suffering is concerned, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,000/- as compensation. Having regard to the evidence of PW 3, the doctor, that the gait of PW 2 was not steady, he was not able to grip and hold, he underwent an operation on 25-9-1980 and was in the hospital as an inpatient till 27-6-1980, I consider that an amount of Rs. 3,000/- will be proper and adequate compensation for the pain and suffering undergone by him due to the injuries, instead of Rs. 2,000/- as determined by the Tribunal I accordingly fix the compensation payable under that head at Rs. 3,000/-. Regarding medical expenses of Rs. 966/- awarded by the Tribunal. I do not see any ground to interfere.
18. As to the loss of earning capacity, it can reasonably be inferred from the medical evidence that the claimant suffered 80 per cent loss of earning capacity due to the injuries sustained by him. The claimant would be unable to earn even one-fourth of the amount he was earning before the accident, during the rest of his life. He was getting an income of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- from the lands owned by him. Definitely due to lack of supervision on his part, there will be a steep fall in his agricultural income. So, it will be just and proper if the compensation towards loss of earning capacity is fixed at Rs. 5,000/-.
19. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards continuing permanent disability and I see no grounds to interfere with the amount of compensation awarded by it. For the period 16-5-1980 to 27-6 1980 during which the claimant was treated as an inpatient in the hospital, I am of the view that he is entitled to be paid compensation of Rs. 1,000/- towards loss of earnings. Therefore, the total amount of compensation the claimant would be entitled to, comes to Rs. 14,966/-. It is rounded off to Rs. 15,000/-. The Road Transport Corporation shall pay interest on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 12 per cent per anuum from the date of this judgment till the date of payment.
20. Regarding the amount of Compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant shall be entitled to interest at 12 per cent per annum instead of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of payment of that amount, C.M.A. No. 607 ofT982 and C.M.A. No. 664 of 1984 preferred by the claimants are allowed in part to the extent indicated above, and C.M.A. Nos. 327 and 336 of 1982 preferred by the Road Transport Corporation are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in the appeals.