Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik Rajiya, Guntur Dist vs Ramesh Anki Reddy, Guntur District Anr on 7 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
I.A.No.3 of 2016/M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.2387 of 2016
IN/AND
M.A.C.M.A. No.1754 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:-
This M.A.C.M.A is directed against the order dated 28.08.2014, by the claimant, in M.V.O.P.No.154 of 2013, where under, the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Guntur, ("Tribunal" for short), as against the claim of the petitioner to award the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 07.05.2012, awarded a sum of Rs.17,000/- directing that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and that the 2nd respondent shall deposit the amount within a period of two (2) months and after deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount immediately.
2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the petitioner in the M.V.O.P.No.154 of 2013 according to the petition averments, in brief, is that: 2
(i) The petitioner is the resident of Srinagar, Guntur.
She is doing coolie work and used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month. She is suffering from polio to her right leg and she is a handicapped. On 07.05.2012, she along with her brother-in-law and her son went to Kothapet for the purpose of pledging T.V., for her family necessities and after returning by walk when they reached near Mahalakshmamma Temple, Kothapet, at about 4.15 pm., a car bearing No.AP-07-AM-9786 (hereinafter will be referred to as "offending vehicle") which was coming from their back side driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, hit the petitioner and she fell down on the road and the car ran over her right leg. Therefore, she received a fracture injury to her right leg. Immediately, she was admitted in Government General Hospital, Guntur and after first aid, she was discharged on the same day. On the next day i.e., on 08.05.2012, she was admitted in Government General Hospital, Guntur. The doctors treated fracture of right leg and discharged her on 09.05.2012 and the doctors advised her to take treatment as outpatient.
ii) The petitioner gave a report to Kothapet Police Station on 09.05.2012 and Kothapet Police registered it as a case in Cr.No.222/2012 against the driver of the offending vehicle under Section 337 IPC. The petitioner is aged about 40 3 years and she was hale and healthy. She is suffering with pain due to the accident. The disability caused to the petitioner is permanent. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and the 2nd respondent is the insurer. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, the claim petition.
4. The 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte.
5. The 2nd respondent filed a counter resisting the claim of the petitioner and the contention in substance is that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license and the insured had committed the breach of terms of insurance policy. The injuries received by the petitioner are simple in nature. The petitioner is put to strict proof of the allegations mentioned in the petition, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:
(1) Whether the petitioner sustained simple injuries only and so, the compensation claimed is excessive? (2) Whether the driver of 1st respondent vehicle has no valid and effective driving license? (3) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation as prayed for?4
(4) To what relief?
7. During the course of trial before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the contesting respondent No.2.
8. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, made findings that the 1st respondent has valid driving license and that the petitioner by virtue of the evidence proved the rash and negligent act against the 1st respondent and the evidence of the petitioner remained unrebutted and that the petitioner sustained only the simple injury and that she did not prove any disability. The Tribunal arrived at the compensation payable by the respondents under different heads as that of Rs.17,000/- as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. While holding so, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.17,000/- as above.
9. Felt aggrieved that the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable, the petitioner filed the present Appeal.
10. As against the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent act of the 1 st respondent in driving the offending vehicle and that the 1st respondent had 5 a valid driving license, no cross objections are filed by the contesting respondents.
11. Hence, the scope of Appeal is limited as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
12. The simple question that falls for consideration is as to whether the award, dated 28.08.2014, on the file of Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Guntur, is sustainable under law and facts, insofar as granting compensation of Rs.17,000/- is concerned, as against the original claim of Rs.2,00,000/-.
13. P.W.1 before the Tribunal was no other than the petitioner, who put forth the facts in tune with the pleadings of his claim petition. Through her examination Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. Ex.A1 was the certified copy of FIR, Ex.A2 was the certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A3 was the certified copy of wound certificates, Ex.A4 was the X-ray films and Ex.A5 was the Photostat copy of policy. The petitioner further examined PW2- the Medical Officer, who examined the injured and issued wound certificate. According to the evidence of PW2, he found a swelling in size 2X4 cm on right leg. The X-ray of ankle of right leg reveals fracture of right tibia. The injuries are grievous in nature.
6
14. As evident from the judgment of the Tribunal, it reveals that only Exs.A1 to A5 were marked through PW1. All are certified copies.
15. The case of the claimant insofar as I.A.No.3 of 2016/M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.2387 of 2016 is that she could not file the disability certificate issued by the competent authority before the Tribunal and she received grievous injuries and that she had the disability of 70%, as such, these documents may be received. In spite of the opportunity was given, no counter is filed on behalf of the respondent. As the I.A.No.3 of 2016/M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.2387 of 2016 is taken up along with the main Appeal, it is also being disposed of along with the M.A.C.M.A.
16. Before taking up the Appeal, it is pertinent to look into the case of the petitioner in I.A.No.3 of 2016. The date of accident was on 07.05.2012. The copy of the proposed document is dated 11.06.2011. What transpires is that basically, the petitioner is physically handicapped person affected with polio. So, she obtained the proposed document so as to claim the benefits under the schemes of the Government. Thus, this document is irrelevant so as to decide the present M.A.C.M.A. This particular document is not going to establish any disability alleged to be sustained by the petitioner on account of the 7 accident in question. Apart from the fact that this document is irrelevant to decide the present M.A.C.M.A, further case of the petitioner is not satisfying the essential ingredients of under order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. Hence, the proposed document is not at all necessary to decide the Appeal.
17. Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that the wound certificate marked on behalf of the petitioner clearly discloses that the appellant received a fracture. The findings of the Tribunal that the appellant received only simple injuries is not at all sustainable on facts. Apart from PW1, the evidence of PW2 supports the case of the appellant that she sustained grievous injuries in the road accident. The findings of the Tribunal that the appellant received simple injury are without any basis whatsoever. With the above said submissions, he would submit that the appellant may be given an opportunity, if the court is going to grant the relief in the additional evidence application so as to prove her case and further the compensation granted by the Tribunal on various grounds is liable to be enhanced.
18. Sri Puppala Suribabu, learned counsel for the contesting 2nd respondent, would seeks to support the judgment of the Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner did not prove the disability or the grievous injury before the Tribunal. However, 8 the Tribunal duly considering the factum of receipt of injuries by the petitioner, awarded reasonable sums under various heads of compensation, as such, there is no need to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
19. There is no dispute that the 1st respondent was the driver of the offending vehicle who did not contest the claim of the petitioner. The evidence on record discloses that on account of the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent in driving the offending vehicle, the petitioner received injuries. The police investigated the case and filed charge sheet, as evident from Ex.A1 and A2. As seen from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with Ex.A3 wound certificate, the Medical Officer found swelling on the right leg and he took X-ray. The X-ray reveals fracture of right tibia. The Medical Officer opined that the injuries are grievous in nature. So, the evidence of PW1 that she received a fracture in the accident in question has support from the contents of Ex.A3 and from the evidence of PW2. When that being so, the findings of the Tribunal that the petitioner received simple injuries is not at all tenable. It appears that the Tribunal did not look into Ex.A3, wound certificate, carefully and properly. Thus, the fact remained is that in the motor vehicle accident that was occurred on 07.05.2012, in which the 1 st respondent involved, the petitioner received grievous injuries. 9
20. There is no dispute that the petitioner was not treated in the hospital as an inpatient. She was only treated as outpatient. Apart from that, there was no surgical procedure attended on PW1. It appears that the fracture of the petitioner was treated by way of conservative treatment. There is no dispute that the petitioner did not sustain any disability. Though the petitioner was suffering from polio prior to the date of accident, the petitioner did not bring anything in the evidence which shows that on account of grievous injury she sustained any disability. As this Court already pointed out that the additional document proposed to be filed has nothing to do with the disability subsequent to the accident. So, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation under the head of disability.
21. But the fact remained is that when the petitioner suffered with a grievous fracture, she was awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- + Rs.5,000/- only under the heads of pain and suffering and simple injury respectively. The petitioner was a feeble person even prior the accident. She received a fracture on her polio affected leg. The Tribunal ought to have considered to award proper amount under the head of grievous injury. Without ascertaining the fact that, she received grievous injury, the Tribunal simply awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- + Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and towards simple injury. 10
22. Having looked into the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner to the polio affected leg, I am of the considered view, that compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards grievous injury as a whole is just and reasonable instead of granting an amount of Rs.5,000/- as simple and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. As the petitioner received grievous injury, this amount of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment has to be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal considered the loss of income of the petitioner for a period of one week. It is to be noted that as the petitioner received fracture to her polio affected leg, it is reasonable to consider the loss of earnings at least for a period of one month and even according to the petitioner she was doing coolie work by earning Rs.3,000/- per month, as such, the loss of earnings are to be awarded for a sum of Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.1,000/-.
23. Having regard to the above, the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation accordingly. In the light of the above, I am of the considered view that the award, dated 28.08.2014, just by awarding Rs.17,000/- is not sustainable under law and facts, as such, the compensation is liable to be enhanced accordingly.
11
24. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part with proportionate costs, enhancing the compensation to Rs.54,000/- from that of Rs.17,000/- with the same interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit as awarded by the Tribunal by holding that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount and directing the 2 nd respondent to deposit the difference compensation amount of Rs.37,000/- within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on such deposit the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire differentiated amount immediately.
25. I.A.No.3 of 2016/M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.2387 of 2016 is concerned shall stand dismissed, accordingly.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt.07.02.2024.
MH 12 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU 156 M.A.C.M.A.No.1754 of 2016 Date: 07.02.2024 MH