Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 586 (AP)

Pithula Pathrudu v. Botta Chinna Rao

2000-08-08

GHULAM MOHAMMED

body2000
GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an unfortunate case of motor accident injury wherein the appellant sustained brain injury and describing it as organic psychosis filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for a sum of rs. 2,20,000. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 51,000 both under pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: on 10. 1. 1990 at about 8. 15 p. m. the injured-appellant Pithula Pathrudu along with some other persons started on a cycle to witness second show cinema in Swamy theatre, Thagarapuvalasa from their village Kapula Uppada. When they reached the garden of Katanpeta, a Matador van bearing No. ADJ 2464 which was coming from Thagarapuvalasa towards Bheemili road in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, dashed the cycle of the appellant and the appellant fell down on the road and sustained injuries on the left eyebrow, left chin, severe contusion to the head and abrasions to both knees of the legs. The petitioner was taken in the same van and admitted in the Government hospital, Bheemunipatnam. It is stated that at the time of accident, the petitioner was an agricultural labourer earning Rs. 1,200 per month and due to the injuries sustained, he became disabled and was not able to carry on the agricultural operations, thus claimed the above said compensation. ( 3 ) THE respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely, the driver and the owner of the vehicle remained ex parte, whereas the respondent no. 3, insurance company, filed counter disputing the earnings and attributing negligence on the part of the cyclist stating that he was carelessly driving the bicycle and he himself is responsible for the said accident and the compensation claimed is excessive. ( 4 ) ON the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed necessary issues for consideration. The first issue as regards the negligence aspect is concerned, the appellant has produced both oral as well as documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. The tribunal while believing the version of pw 3 who is an eyewitness to the incident rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and also held that the evidence of PW 3 is in corroboration with the claim petition. The tribunal while believing the version of pw 3 who is an eyewitness to the incident rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and also held that the evidence of PW 3 is in corroboration with the claim petition. ( 5 ) AS regards the determination of just compensation under the provisions of section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. G. Ramagopal Rao contended that the entire approach of the Tribunal is inequitable and inasmuch as the Tribunal has not awarded the compensation as claimed by the appellant herein by following the reasonable criteria as contemplated under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. As regards the issue in not appreciating the medical evidence in proper perspective is concerned, he drew my attention to the medical evidence, namely, the evidence of the doctor who was examined as PW 1 and also the certificate issued by him under Exh. A-1. ( 6 ) TO determine the compensation in a case of this nature, it is essential and necessary to go through the medical evidence and see the effect of the accident by which the appellant-injured became disabled and deprived of his comforts and also the fruits of life. ( 7 ) PW 1 Dr. G. D. Bhagya Rao, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Government hospital for Mental Care, Visakhapatnam, deposed that he examined Pathrudu, the appellant, and when the appellant-injured brought to the hospital with the following complaints, namely, loss of speech, biting people, loss of power in left upper and lower limbs and throwing away articles from home and he observed that the appellant was suffering with organic psychosis due to brain damage following head injury and he issued Exh. A-l wound certificate. In the cross-examination he stated that immediately he has not treated the patient but he gave treatment for psychiatric complications and he also stated that it is a case of mental disability and it cannot be assessed in terms of percentage of disability and the percentage of disability will be assessed only in cases of physical disabilities. A-l wound certificate. In the cross-examination he stated that immediately he has not treated the patient but he gave treatment for psychiatric complications and he also stated that it is a case of mental disability and it cannot be assessed in terms of percentage of disability and the percentage of disability will be assessed only in cases of physical disabilities. ( 8 ) STEDMAN s Medical Dictionary defines organic Psychosis as follows:"a medical disorder causing gross distortion or disorganisation of a person s mental capacity, effective response, and capacity to recognise reality, communicate and relates to others to the degree of interfering with his capacity to cope with the ordinary demands of everyday life. The psychos are divided into two major classifications according to their origins: (1) P. associated with organic brain syndromes (e. g. , Korsa-koff s syndrome) and functional p. ; (2) A generic term for any of the insanities, the most common form being the schizophrenias, (3) A severe emotional illness". ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the decision of this court in P. Satyanarayana v. I. Babu rajendra Prasad, 1988 ACJ 88 (AP), wherein the learned Judge has rightly considered the aspect of total wreck. That was a case relating to the loss of both eyes and severe head injury resulting in total loss of mental faculties. In the above said case this court has classified the injuries into four categories: (a) total wrecks; (b) partial wrecks; and (c) where limbs and eyes and other specific parts of the body are lost, which can be subgrouped according to the type of limb lost; and (d) smaller injuries which cannot be specifically grouped but for which compensation can be assessed by comparison with injuries of loss, limbs, e. g. , comparing permanent wrist injury with the loss of hand, or comparing a temporary broken arm with the loss of arm, etc. ( 10 ) WITH regard to the first category, namely, total wreck , it comprises cases of complete incapacity for work and virtually no enjoyment of life, e. g. , paralysis, severe brain injury causing insanity, multiple injuries leaving the victim a total cripple. ( 10 ) WITH regard to the first category, namely, total wreck , it comprises cases of complete incapacity for work and virtually no enjoyment of life, e. g. , paralysis, severe brain injury causing insanity, multiple injuries leaving the victim a total cripple. Taking the clue from the decision of this court and having regard to the medical evidence on record, i. e. , the evidence of the doctor PW 1 who described the ailment as organic psychosis which comes under the total wreck since he has become totally insane and incapable to do any work, it can be treated as total disablement and the compensation has to be awarded as per the judgment of this court for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The pecuniary loss has to be assessed in terms of the loss of income and non-pecuniary loss has to be assessed under three items, namely, pain and suffering, loss of amenities or enjoyment of fruits of life and thirdly, loss of expectation of life. Taking into consideration the above background of the case and also considering the medical evidence on record and the evidence of PW 2 who is the father of the appellant who deposed that the injured-appellant was working as a labourer and was earning an amount of rs. 1,200 per month, and considering the overall situation as also the age of the injured as 20 years, I deem it fit to take rs. 600 as the monthly income of the appellant; the total income per year comes to rs. 7,200 and following the judgment of the Apex Court in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 acj 831 (SC), proper multiplier has to be taken as 18. If the multiplier of 18 is used, it comes to Rs. 1,29,600 towards loss of income, which comes under the head of pecuniary loss. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent mr. Ramana Rao contended that had the appellant been given proper medical care, this situation would not have taken place and there is no question of treating this case under the category of total wreck. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent mr. Ramana Rao contended that had the appellant been given proper medical care, this situation would not have taken place and there is no question of treating this case under the category of total wreck. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel. ( 12 ) NOW coming to the question of grant of compensation under the head non-pecuniary loss , following the decision in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra (supra), I deem it proper to grant Rs. 50,000 under the head. Accordingly an amount of Rs. 50,000 is hereby awarded towards non-pecuniary loss. ( 13 ) IN the result the award of the tribunal is modified by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 51,000 to Rs. 1,79,600 together with interest from the date of petition till the date of realisation jointly and severally by the respondents. ( 14 ) THE appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.