Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Tapa Prasad And 2 Others on 9 May, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.696 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
I. Introduction:
One Tapa Prasad [herein after referred to as 'the claimant'], met with an accident, on the intervening night of 24/25.06.2011 allegedly on account of rash and negligent driving of goods auto bearing No.AP 05 V 7035 [for short referred as 'the offending vehicle'] by its driver.
[ii] M.V.O.P.No.456 of 2014 was filed by him before the District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal [for short "MACT"], claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
[iii] Learned MACT under the questioned Decree and Order dated 23.11.2017 awarded a compensation of Rs.2,70,000/-.
[iv] Driver of the offending vehicle- 1 st respondent and owner- 2nd respondent remained ex parte. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company contested the case.
[v] Respondent Insurance Company filed the present Appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as claimant and respondents, as and how they are arrayed before the leaned MACT .
2
II. Case of the claimant, in brief: 3. [i] Wife of the claimant- one Tapa Prasad, contending that the
said Tapa Prasad became unsound, filed the claim petition specifically pleading that the claimant was working in Kotak Mahindra Company as recovery agent and he was drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. On 24/25-06-2011 at about 0.30 hours, when he was travelling on his Motor Cycle near Chandana Ramesh apartments at Dowlaiswaram road, Rajamundry, within the limits of Dowlaiswaram Police Station, the 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle, on which the claimant was travelling, from its behind causing the accident. Due to the said impact the claimant received the following injuries :-
(1) a lacerated injury of 2" x 1½" x Bone deep near the outer angle of the left eye (CT report fracture), (2) an abrasion of 2" x 2" over the left side of the forehead.
(3) Tenderness on the left chest (Fracture of 2 to 7th Ribs) on left side (4) Tenderness over the Left shoulder (fracture).
[ii] The claimant was shifted to Apex Energy Hospital, Rajahmundry soon after the accident. He was given treatment in ICU, kept on ventilator. Thereafter he was shifted to Life Emergency Hospital, Rajahmundry, where brain operation was conducted due to blood clots in the nerves in bran. He was inpatient for 15 days, treatment was given for 3 ribs and color bone fractures. He was treated at Bollineni Hospital, Sneha Hospital and Sri Ramya Hospital, Rajahmundry, he had incurred huge expenditure.
[iii] Claimant was aged '35', hale and healthy, but due to the accident, lost his memory and unable to do any work, became permanently disabled. Hence, entitled for just and reasonable compensation. III. Case of the respondent No.3/Insurance Company [appellant]:
4. [i] Claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, absence of negligence on the part of the claimant in driving the motor cycle and negligence of the claimant as the cause for the accident.
[ii] The claimant shall prove his age, occupation and disability suffered, loss of income due to disability with cogent evidence.
[iii] The driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the valid and effective driving licence. The offending vehicle is of transport category but, the licence possessed by the driver is of non-transport category.
[iv] The claim is excessive and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
5. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial:
1) Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent driver of the offending vehicle i.e. goods auto bearing No.AP 5 V 7035?4
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount and from which of the respondents?
3) To what relief?
6. Evidence before the learned MACT:
For the Claimant For the Respondents
Exhibit Description Exhibit Description
No. No.
Ex.A1 Attested copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.97/2011 - Nil -
Ex.A2 Attested copy of wound certificate
Ex.A3 Attested copy of charge sheet
Ex.A4 Attested copy of bunch of prescriptions.
Ex.A5 Bunch of medical bills worth Rs.90,257/-
Ex.A6 Salary particulars
Ex.A7 Copy of income Tax returns
Ex.A8 Medical Certificate issued by Bollineni
Hospitals, Rajahmundry.
Ex.X1 Case Sheet
Ex.X2 Case Sheet
Ex.X3 Some of medical bills (as in Ex.A5)
Ex.X4 Authorization letter
Ex.X5 Copy of driving licence
Witnesses examined Witnesses examined
PW.1 Tapa Lakshmi RW.1 ADS Narayana
[wife of the Claimant / Petitioner] [Senior Asst. in RTA,
Rajahmundry]
PW.2 Dr.R.B.P.R Chowdary RW.2 Ch. Naguru Meera
[General Surgeon and running Apex Emergency Sayeebu
Hospital] [Dy. Manager of 3rd
respondent]
PW.3 Dr.R.V.Ravi
[Consultant Neuro surgeon in Life Emergency
Hospital]
7. Findings of the learned MACT:-
(A.) On the point of negligence :-
[i] PW.1, wife of the claimant deposed about the accident etc.,
Ex.A1-F.I.R., Ex.A2-wound Certificate, Ex.A3-Charge Sheet are supporting 5 the claim of the petitioner. The factum of accident is not in dispute. The driver of the offending vehicle is proper person to deny the accident, but he remained ex parte.
[ii] Manager of the Insurance Company, RW.2 did not dispute the negligence etc..
[iii] Hence, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is proved.
(B.) On the point of absence of proper Driving Licence:-
[i] The objection as to want of transport category driving licence is not tenable in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in a case between Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1.
(C.) On the point of quantum of compensation:-
Injuries are grievous in nature. Evidence of Doctors PW.2 and PW.3 indicates the operations and treatment undergone by the claimant, including the nature of injuries. Hence, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under pain and suffering, Rs.90,260/- under medical expenditure, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earnings for 03 months period of treatment, 30,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and in all the claimant is entitled for Rs.2,70,260/-.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the decree and order, the present appeal is filed by the respondent No.3-Insurance Company, on the grounds that 1 (2019) 12 SCC 816 6
(a) The claimant/injured failed to prove the accident and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
(b) The driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the driving licence to drive the transport vehicle and he was having only the LMV non- transport category of driving licence.
(c) Claimant failed to prove the income and medical expenditure, disability etc.
(d) Quantum of compensation claimed is excessive. Arguments in the Appeal:
9. Arguments are submitted on behalf of the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of grounds of appeal, mentioned above.
For the claimant:-
10. [i] Learned MACT failed to consider the loss of income and permanent disability suffered due to loss of memory, the compensation awarded is very meager.
[ii] The findings of the learned MACT as to negligence and sufficiency of driving licence for the driver of the offending vehicle are fit for confirmation.
[iii] There is no bar for awarding more compensation than what claimant and awarding just compensation in the appeal even in the absence 7 of appeal or cross-objection on behalf of the claimant is permissible, hence, compensation awarded may be enhanced.
11. Perused the evidence on record.
12. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides.
13. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are that -
1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 24/25.06.2011 has occurred due to the exclusive rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
2) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation, if so, to what quantum and what is the liability of the respondent No.3-Insurance Company [appellant]?
3) Whether the compensation of Rs.2,70,260/- granted by the learned MACT is just and reasonable in the context of the case? Or require any modification by way of reduction or enhancement?
4) What is the result of the appeal?
Point No.1:
Plea of Negligence:-
14. There is no evidence placed by the Insurance Company to prove the contributory negligence on part of the injured claimant in riding the motor cycle. Having failed to discharge the burden to prove the plea of contributory negligence, the Insurance Company cannot make any objection at this stage.
8
15. While addressing the defence of contributory negligence, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushma Vs. Nitin Ganapati Rangole and others2, at Paragraph Nos.36 and 37 made reference to other judgments and extracted relevant observations which are as follows:
"36. In the case of Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak, {(2002) 6 SCC 455}, this Court while referring to a decision of the High Court of Australia in Astley v. Austrust Ltd., {(1999) 73 ALJR 403}, went on to hold that:
"... where, by his negligence, if one party places another in a situation of danger which compels that other to act quickly in order to extricate himself, it does not amount to contributory negligence, if that other acts in a way which, with the benefit of hindsight is shown not to have been the best way out of the difficulty."
37. In the very same judgment, this Court also referred to and approved the view taken in Swadling v. Cooper, {1931 AC 1}, as below:
"Mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some extra ordinary precaution, does not in itself constitute negligence."
16. The observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court lead to understand that mere failure to avoid the collision or take extraordinary precautions does not constitute negligence.
Point found relevant for assessing negligence:-
17. [i] It is pertinent to note that there is no proper denial of the accident by the concerned person viz., driver of the offending vehicle. He remained ex parte.
2 2024 (6) ALD (SC)=2024 SCC OnLine SC 2584 9 [ii] Appellant-Insurance Company did not choose to summon the driver or any other witness cited in the charge sheet. Admittedly, the driver was prosecuted for the offence of negligently causing the accident.
[iii] Result of the criminal case is not known. It may not possible in all cases to examine the eye witness.
[iv] The Tribunal dealing with the motor accident claims shall examine the case with a holistic view considering the facts and circumstances case.
[v] There is no denial about the accident by the proper person. Crime record is vindicating the stand of the claimants.
[vi] In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the final record covered by Ex.A1 to A3, the view taken by the leaned MACT found fit for confirmation on the point of negligence. Accordingly, the findings of the learned MACT are confirmed and Point No.1 is answered in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. Points 2 and 3:-
18. Points 2 and 3 are inter-linked as they are touching liability and quantification of compensation, hence, they are being discussed and decided together.
I. Proper Driving Licence to the driver of the offending vehicle: 10
I.(A).Precedential Guidance as to Driving Licence:
19. The defences as to want of transport endorsement do not merit any consideration in the context of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited3 [Mukund Dewangan(2016)] and Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited4 [Mukund Dewangan(2017)].
20. Further, reference made on the point whether "a person holding a licence for a 'Light Motor Vehicle' class non transport can drive a 'Transport Vehicle' without a specific endorsement, provided the 'Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW)' of the vehicle does not exceed 7,500 Kgs?" is answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi and Others5 at length and the observation are made under the caption of conclusion vide para Nos.125 to 131 which are as follows:
125. The licensing regime under the MV Act and the MV Rules, when read as a whole, does not provide for a separate endorsement for operating a 'Transport Vehicle', if a driver already holds a LMV license. We must however clarify that the exceptions carved out by the legislature for special vehicles like e-carts and e-rickshaws74, or vehicles carrying hazardous goods75, will remain unaffected by the decision of this Court.
126. As discussed earlier in this judgment, the definition of LMV under Section 2(21) of the MV Act explicitly provides what a 'Transport Vehicle' 3 (2016) 4 SCC 298 4 (2019) 12 SCC 816 5 2024 SCC Online SC 3183 11 'means'. This Court must ensure that neither provision i.e. the definition under Section 2(21) or the second part of Section 3(1) which concerns the necessity for a driving license for a 'Transport Vehicle' is reduced to a dead letter of law. Therefore, the emphasis on 'Transport Vehicle' in the licensing scheme has to be understood only in the context of the 'medium' and 'heavy' vehicles. This harmonious reading also aligns with the objective of the 1994 amendment in Section 10(2) to simplify the licensing procedure.
127. The above interpretation also does not defeat the broader twin objectives of the MV Act i.e. road safety and ensuring timely compensation and relief for victims of road accidents. The aspect of road safety is earlier discussed at length. An authoritative pronouncement by this Court would prevent insurance companies from taking a technical plea to defeat a legitimate claim for compensation involving an insured vehicle weighing below 7,500 kgs driven by a person holding a driving license of a 'Light Motor Vehicle' class.
128. In an era where autonomous or driver-less vehicles are no longer tales of science fiction and app-based passenger platforms are a modern reality, the licensing regime cannot remain static. The amendments that have been carried out by the Indian legislature may not have dealt with all possible concerns. As we were informed by the Learned Attorney General that a legislative exercise is underway, we hope that a comprehensive amendment to address the statutory lacunae will be made with necessary corrective measures.
129. Just to flag one concern, the legislature through the 1994 amendment in Section 10(2)(e) in order to introduce 'transport vehicle' as a separate class could not have intended to merge light motor vehicle (which continued as a distinct class) along with medium, and heavy vehicles into a single class. Else, it would give rise to a situation in which Sri (our hypothetical character), wanting to participate in the cycling sport, is put through the rigorous training relevant only for a multisport like Triathlon, which requires a much higher degree of endurance and athleticism. The 12 effort therefore should be to ensure that the statute remains practical and workable.
130. Now harking back to the primary issue and noticing that the core driving skills (as enunciated in the earlier paragraphs), expected to be mastered by all drivers are universal - regardless of whether the vehicle falls into "Transport" or "Non-Transport" category, it is the considered opinion of this Court that if the gross vehicle weight is within 7,500 kg - the quintessential common man's driver Sri, with LMV license, can also drive a "Transport Vehicle". We are able to reach such a conclusion as none of the parties in this case has produced any empirical data to demonstrate that the LMV driving licence holder, driving a 'Transport Vehicle', is a significant cause for road accidents in India. The additional eligibility criteria as specified in MV Act and MV Rules as discussed in this judgment will apply only to such vehicle ('medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger vehicle', 'heavy goods vehicle' and 'heavy passenger vehicle'), whose gross weight exceeds 7,500 Kg. Our present interpretation on how the licensing regime is to operate for drivers under the statutory scheme is unlikely to compromise the road safety concerns. This will also effectively address the livelihood issues for drivers operating Transport Vehicles (who clock maximum hours behind the wheels), in legally operating "Transport vehicles" (below 7,500 Kg), with their LMV driving license. Perforce Sri must drive responsibly and should have no occasion to be called either a maniac or an idiot (as mentioned in the first paragraph), while he is behind the wheels. Such harmonious interpretation will substantially address the vexed question of law before this Court.
131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:--
(I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a 'Transport Vehicle' without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the 'Transport Vehicle' class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the 13 two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.
(II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a 'Transport Vehicle,' does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.
(III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving 'transport vehicles' would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger vehicle', 'heavy goods vehicle' and 'heavy passenger vehicle'.
(IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment."
I. (B) Evidence as to Absence of proper driving licence to 1st respondent:-
21. The evidence of RW.1-ADS Narayana, working as the Senior Assistant in RTA Rajahmahendravaram coupled with Ex.X5 shows that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing licence of LMV non-transport category.
22. The objection of the Insurance Company is that there is no transport endorsement. The evidence of RW.3 is also on the same point as to nature of the vehicle, that it is a transport category.
23. The legal position as to the person driving the transport category vehicle with non-transport category of driving licence is addressed in Mukund Dewangans's case [1 cited supra].
14
24. Therefore, the objection as to not holding of proper licence found fit to be rejected. Insurance Company is found liable to pay compensation. II. Quantum of compensation:-
Precedential guidance as to quantum of compensation:
25(i). With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of compensation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr.6, arising out of SLP(c).No.10996 of 2018 on 11.12.2024, considered the scope and powers of the Tribunal in awarding just and reasonable compensation within the meaning of Act, after marshaling entire case law, more particularly with reference to the earlier observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.7, referred to various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:
S. No. Head Amount (In ₹)
1. Medicines and Medical Treatment xxxxx
2. Loss of Earning Capacity due to xxxxx
Disability
3. Pain and Suffering xxxxx
4. Future Treatment xxxxx
5. Attendant Charges xxxxx
6. Loss of Amenities of Life xxxxx
7. Loss of Future Prospect xxxxx
8. Special Education Expenditure xxxxx
9. Conveyance and Special Diet xxxxx
10. Loss of Marriage Prospects xxxxxx
_________
Total Rs. ...xxxxxx
_________
6
2025 AIAR (Civil) 1
7
2020 (04) SCC 413
15
(ii). A reference to parameters for quantifying the compensation
under various heads addressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is found necessary, to have standard base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which the claimant is entitled.
(iii) In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another8 vide para No.19, the Hon'ble Apex Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of quantifying the compensation after referring to socio economic and practical aspects from which, the claimants come and the practical difficulties, the parties may face in the process of getting disability assessed and getting all certificates from either the Doctors, who treated, or from the medical boards etc., it is observed that :-
"...We may now summarise the principles discussed above :
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity.
To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
8 2011 (1) SCC 343 16
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors..."
(iv). In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr9 vide para No.40, the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and assessment of future loss of earning due to permanent disability by referring to Rajkumar's case, and also various heads under which compensation can be awarded to a victim of a motor vehicle accident.
(v). In Sidram's case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd10. From the observations therein it can be understood that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But, all these elements have to be viewed with objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in awarding speculation or fancy, though conjecture to some extent is inevitable.
Enhancement in the appeal of Insurance Company, where there is no appeal by the claimants:-
26(i). Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal or cross appeal by the claimant. The legal position as to powers of 9 2023 (3) SCC 439 10 1995 (1) SCC 551 17 the Appellate Court particularly while dealing with an appeal in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the award passed by the learned MACT under challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company (Respondents) and bar or prohibition if any to enhance the quantum of compensation and awarding just and reasonable compensation, even in the absence of any appeal or cross objections was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a case between National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others11 in M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013, while answering point No.3 framed therein vide, para 50 of the judgment, which reads as follows:
50. In our considered view, the claimant/respondents are entitled for just compensation and if on the face of the award or even in the light of the evidence on record, and keeping in view the settled legal position regarding the claimants being entitled to just compensation and it also being the statutory duty of the Court/Tribunal to award just compensation, this Court in the exercise of the appellate powers can enhance the amount of compensation even in the absence of appeal or cross-objection by the claimants.
(ii). Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (11 supra) case are in compliance with the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others12.
(iii). In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others (12 supra) case, in Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 vide judgment dated 21.01.2020, three 11 2023 SCC Online AP 1725 12 (2021) 16 SCC 467 18 judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "it is well stated that in the matter of Insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants". While addressing a case where the High Court has declined to grant enhancement on the ground that the claimants fail to file cross appeal above observations are made.
Analysis Of Evidence:-
27. PW.1, wife of the claimant deposed that the claimant was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, Ex.A8 is Medical Certificate relating to the Surgery underwent under Aarogyasri Scheme and that they did not incurred any expenditure for the surgery. Ex.A5 bills relating to attending to various Hospitals. She has asserted that her husband is not in a physically capable position to attend the Court and give evidence.
28. PW.2, Doctor, who treated the petitioner/ deposited as follows:-
"The injured by name Tapa Prasad (injured Identified the Doctor by giving evidence) was admitted on 25/06/2011 at 1.00 a.m. with injuries allegedly sustained in a R.T.A.. due to skid from a bike near Palakendram at Dowaleswaram. He was brought by 108 ambulance. He was treated by Dr.R.V. Ravi, Neuro Surgeon in I.C.U. He was treated on ventilator. He also sustained multiple rib fractures and fracture scapula left side. He was discharged at request on 26/6/2011.
Ex.X1 is the case sheet maintained during the inpatient stay of the injured which contained progress notes and consultant notes, Bunch of investigation reports and C.T. Scan Brain report.
Ex.A2 is the wound certificate issued by the M.L.C. Medical Officer. According to our M.L.C. Doctor report all the injuries mentioned (1 to 4 are grievous in nature).19
Ex.A5 contains some of the bills issued by our hospital including pharmacy bills. I won't be in a position to comment upon the condition of the patient at present.
Cross-examination:
It is not true to suggest that treatment given to the injured in our hospital, the bills contained in Ex.A5 are excessive and issued to help the petitioner."
29. PW.3, Dr.R.V. Ravi, who treated the claimant deposed as follows:-
" I am consultant neuro surgeon to Life Emergency Hospital since 2004. I have examined the patient P.V. Prasad (Doctor identified the petitioner at the time of giving evidence). On 26/6/2011 after he was admitted in the hospital, because of a Road Traffic Accident on 25/6/2011 at the time of examination, the patient was unconscious and on ventilator. Patient was investigated with routine investigations and C.T.Scan of Brain.
C.T. Scan showed fracture of Temporal Bone. Acute subdural Hematoma in right lateral convexity and hemorrhagic contusions in bilateral temporal rigious.
Patient was treated conservatively with medicines.
Over the period of time patient showed improvement and was taken off ventilator and discharged on 6/7/2011. At the time discharge patient was drowsy and arousable.
There is a chance to loss of memory because of the said injury to the Brain. Ex.X2 is the case sheet and C.T. Scan Reports of the patient maintained by Life Emergency Hospital during his stay. Ex.X3 is the Bunch of medical bills and receipts issued by Life Emergency Hospital, including the cash receipts separately issued by life emergency Hospital for Rs.40,750/- wide receipt the date of discharge. He was in patient in the Hospital for about 11 days. Cross-examination:
During his stay in Life Emergency Hospital since he developed improvement he was discharged. He was conscious for some time at the time of discharge. After discharge from my hospital, the patient did not attend any follow up treatment before me. It is not true to suggest that medical bills are excessive and to help the petitioner they are accordingly shown."20
30. PW.2 in his chief examination itself stated that "I won't be in a position to comment upon the condition of the patient at present". PW.3, while referring to the treatment given to the injured, did not say anything about the loss of memory etc., of the claimant, except stating that there is chance of loss of memory.
31. During the cross-examination, PW.3 stated that since he developed improvement, he was discharged. He was conscious for some time at the time of discharge. After discharge from the hospital, patient did not attend any follow up treatment.
32. As rightly observed by the learned MACT, the disability certificate if any issued by the competent authority and evidence touching the disability is not placed before the Court to grant any compensation under the head of permanent disability. Certain part of the treatment was given admittedly under the Scheme of Aarogysri. Reasoning of learned MACT, while quantifying the compensation in Para-14 to 17 indicating the following aspects:-
1) The claimant suffered several injuries. Some of them are fractures.
2) The claimant was admitted in hospital continuously for 15 days and taken to Sarla Hospitals.
3) 3 months total loss of income @Rs.10,000/- in all Rs.30,000/- has been awarded.
4) C.T. Scan of brain was done, (4) injuries grievous in nature are noted.
Dr. Ravi, PW.3 is Neuro Surgeon.
21
5) His evidence shows that at the time of examination of patient by PW.3, the patient was in unconscious condition; C.T. Scan shows Temporal Bone, acute subdural Hematoma in right lateral convexity, treatment was given conservatively with medicines. Improvement was done and discharge was done. There is chance of loss of memory because of injury to brain.
6) Except the statement of PW.1 that the claimant lost memory and non- functioning of one year, there is no evidence and even PWs.2 and 3 anything about that.
33. In the light of the evidence referred above the entitlement of the claimant for compensation under various heads in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follow:-
S.No. Head Granted by the Fixed by this
MACT Appellate Court
1. Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.90,260/- Rs.90,260/-
3. Loss of earnings Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/-
during the period of
03 months treatment
4. Attendant Charges Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/-
5. Extra Nourishment Rs.10,000/- Rs.50,000/-
6. Transportation Rs.10,000/- Rs.30,000/-
Total: Rs.2,70,260/- 3,30,260/-
34. For the reasons stated and the discussion made above, the point Nos.2 and 3 are answered against the appellant- Insurance Company and in favour of the claimant, concluding that the claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,30,260/- instead of Rs.2,70,260/-. 22 Point No.4:
35. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the findings of point Nos.1, 2 and 3, Point No.4 is answered as follows:
In the result,
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
(ii) However, compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.
2,70,260/- is modified and enhanced to Rs.3,30,260/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
(iii) The compensation awarded shall be deposited within a period of six (06) weeks from now, after adjusting the amount if any already deposited.
(iv) There shall be no order as to costs, in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date: 09.05.2025 Pnr 23 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.No.707 of 2017 Dt. 04 .04.2025 Pnr