Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kagithala Venkataramana vs A.S.S.Ramachari on 21 August, 2019
Author: M. Ganga Rao
Bench: M. Ganga Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO
MACMA.No.3270 of 2005
JUDGMENT:
The appellant is the claimant filed this appeal against the order and decree dated 19-07-2005 passed in M.O.P.No.44 of 2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, granting compensation of Rs.25,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization to the claimant as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident that occurred on 25.01.2004 at about 8.00 P.M. near Anandapuram junction, Visakhapatnam.
The claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him, alleging that on 25.01.2004, when the petitioner aged 25 years, who was working in Rama Ice Cold Storage, Bheemili, Visakhapatnam, was proceeding on his Luna Moped bearing No.AP-31-A-3658 and passing Anandapuram junction, one APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-9600 was coming from Visakhapatnam to Vizianagaram in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the moped resulting in the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained injuries on the right hand, upper jaw, lower lips and head injuries. Initially, he was taken to Mrudula Nursing Home, Thagarapuvalasa, and on the next day, he was shifted to K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam, where he underwent treatment as in-patient from 26-01-2004 to 08-02-2004. Thereafter, 2 MGR, J MACMA.No.3270 of 2005 he was shifted to Care Hospital, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam and underwent treatment by Dr. Gopikrishna. The petitioner spent Rs.50,000/- for medical expenditure. The Station House Officer, Padmanabham registered a case in Crime No.12 of 2004 under Section 338 IPC against the 1st respondent, the driver of the 2nd respondent-Corporation and both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
The 2nd respondent filed its counter denying the averments of the claim petition, the age and income of the claimant, the manner of the accident and the rashness and negligence on the part of the 1st respondent driver.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial.
1) Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner-Kagithala Venkataramana and if so, was it due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle (RTC bus) bearing Regd. No.AO-10-Z-9600 by its driver, the 1st respondent?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, and if so, what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?
3) To what relief?
During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. On the other hand, RW.1 was examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondents.
The Tribunal, considering the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 coupled with the documents of Exs.A.2, A.3, and A.7, held that the 1st respondent-driver was in rash and negligent driving the offending 3 MGR, J MACMA.No.3270 of 2005 RTC bus at the time of accident and dashed against the petitioner. The Tribunal also held that 50% of the negligence could not be attributed to the petitioner as he crossed the stationed lorry and thereafter the accident took place. The Tribunal, based on the evidence of PW.2, the doctor, who treated the claimant, coupled with documentary evidence of Ex.A.7-Disability Certificate, Ex.A.5-bunch of medical bills, and Ex.A.8-receipt, awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit. Assailing the said award, the petitioner filed the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in not granting just compensation to the 30% disability sustained by the appellant by applying method of multiplier. He further contends that the Tribunal ought to have granted more amount under special and general damages as claimed by the appellant.
Sri S. V. Ramana, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has strenuously contended that the Tribunal has rightly granted just compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner. The award does not warrant for interference of this court.
The finding of the Tribunal on Issue No.1 is that the 1st respondent driver was rash and negligent in driving the offending RTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-9600 at the time of accident and dashed against the moped. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to 4 MGR, J MACMA.No.3270 of 2005 50% of the negligence on the part of the appellant-petitioner needs no interference as the Tribunal itself held that after the petitioner crossed the stationed lorry the accident took place. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal on issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent-Corporation became final as no appeal is filed by APSRTC.
Coming to the quantum of compensation, the case of the petitioner is that on account of the accident, the petitioner sustained simple and grievous injuries as well as suffered 30% of the disability. In support of his case, the petitioner filed Ex.A.2-wound certificate, which disclosed the following injuries:
1) A sustained laceration of 3 c.m. length over the upper lip;
2) A contusion of 5 c.m. X 4 c.m. over right shoulder back;
3) An abrasion on right temple; and
4) Diffuse swelling over right side fore arm and out of the said injuries, injury No.4 was mentioned as grievous in nature and the other injuries were mentioned simple in nature. The petitioner also filed Ex.A.7-Disability Certificate issued by PW.2, who is the doctor. The evidence of PW.1, the injured coupled with the evidence of PW.2, the doctor, would show that the petitioner underwent treatment in K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam for two weeks as an in-patient and steel plates were inserted on his right hand and he underwent operation and sutures were done and that ever after discharge also, the petitioner undergone treatment in Accidental Care Hospital, Marripalem. Even PW.2, the doctor, who treated the injured, also stated that he assessed the disability at 30% which was
5 MGR, J MACMA.No.3270 of 2005 partial and permanent. PW.2 further stated that the injured must under go surgery for removal of the implants. He also stated that the disability was permanent and partial and there is a weakness of the muscles of the right forearm which restriction of pronation and supination movements accompanied by pain. PW.2 further stated that the petitioner needs future treatment for removal of implants for which he is required nearly an amount of Rs.7,000/-. The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards continuing permanent disability, but, the Tribunal granted only an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards. Considering the nature of the injuries and the 30% of the disability of partial and permanent sustained by the petitioner, as discussed above, it is just and reasonable to grant further amount of Rs.10,000/- towards continuing permanent disability and medical expenses. In addition to it, though the appellant claimed an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transport to the hospital, the Tribunal granted only an amount of Rs.1,000/- was awarded under this head. Considering the treatment undergone by the petitioner as an in- patient and the nature of the injuries sustained by him, it is just and reasonable to grant further amount of Rs.4,000/- under the head of transport charges as claimed. Further, the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards medicines and extra nourishment. But, the Tribunal granted only an amount of Rs.5,000/- under special damages. Considering the treatment taken by the petitioner as in- patient and the nature of injuries sustained by him, this court found that the petitioner must have taken some diet/extra nourishment 6 MGR, J MACMA.No.3270 of 2005 during the treatment period and thereafter also. Therefore, it is just and reasonable to grant further amount of Rs.35,000/- towards continued medical treatment and extra nourishment. Thus, in all, the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.74,000/- which will be just compensation along with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit on the enhanced compensation.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part granting a total compensation of Rs.74,000/- by enhancing the same from Rs.25,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit on the enhanced compensation payable by the respondents. The respondents shall deposit the entire compensation before the Tribunal to the credit of the O.P. along with interest and costs, after deducting the amounts, if any, already deposited. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________ M. GANGA RAO, J Date: 21-08-2019 Ksn