Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1264 (AP)

Shaik Farid Bi v. Konduri Appa Rao

2003-10-16

B.S.A.SWAMY

body2003
( 1 ) THE claimant in M. V. O. P. No. 448 of 1996 on the file of I Additional District Judge cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, guntur, filed this appeal having not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the tribunal for the injuries sustained by her in the accident that has taken placed on 22-09-1994. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the appellant is aged about 22 years and was earning her livelihood by attending to collie work on a remuneration of about Rs. /30/- per day. On the fateful day to go to the work place from Inavolu to Gundlakamma vagu bridge construction work she got into the tractor of the contractor and perhaps while she was alighting from the tractor at the work place the driver of the tractor suddenly drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and with the result the appellant fell down from the tractor and the trailer of the tractor ran over her body. She was treated as an inpatient for three months in Guntur general Hospital for the injuries sustained by her due to the overrun of the trailer attached to the tractor. Thereafter she filed claim petition estimating the damages as hereunder: for pain and suffering and agony rs. 15,000/-, for loss of expectancy of life and for loss of amenities and support rs. 10,000/-, for grievous injuries to the left leg Rs. 10,000/-, for loss of earning capacity and earnings Rs. 60,000/- and for medicines, attendant and special diet Rs. 3,000/ -. In all, she claimed Rs. 98,000/-, but restricted her claim to Rs. 50,000/ -. ( 3 ) THE first respondent remained exparte. The Insurance Company filed a written statement stating that the petitioner has to prove the mode and manner of accident, nature of injuries, loss of income and other aspects. It is also their case that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent, but she herself is responsible in receiving injuries as she tried to cross the road grossly without observing the traffic rules and hit the vehicle resulting in injuries. To prove their case, while the petitioner got herself examined as P. W. 1, the Civil Surgeon who treated her in the Government hospital was examined as P. W. 2 and Exs. A-1 to A-5 were marked, i. e. , Ex. To prove their case, while the petitioner got herself examined as P. W. 1, the Civil Surgeon who treated her in the Government hospital was examined as P. W. 2 and Exs. A-1 to A-5 were marked, i. e. , Ex. A-l - certified copy of the FIR, Ex. A-2 - certified copy of wound certificate, Ex. A-3 - certified copy of charge sheet, Ex. A-4 - O. P. Chit and Ex. A-5 - case sheet. The Senior Assistant in the office of the insurance Company was examined as r. W. 1 and Junior Assistant in RTOs office was examined as R. W. 2 on behalf of the respondents to prove that the weight of the tractor is above 7. 500 Kgs. and as such the driver of the vehicle who is holding a light motor vehicle driving licence cannot drive the vehicle. On their behalf Exs. B-1 - copy of the policy, and Ex. B-2 - endorsement of additional Licensing Authority. Narasaraopet on the driving licence were marked and the Extract of driving licence was marked as Ex. X-1. ( 4 ) THE learned Judge having rejected the contention of R-2 that the first respondentowner of the tractor violated the terms and conditions of the policy and as such the insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and having held that both the respondents (ie) owner of the tractor and the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner, awarded a lump sum of Rs. 25,000/- together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit by respondents 1 and 2 with costs. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant preferred the appeal. ( 5 ) THE matter came up for hearing yesterday and since the counsel for the respondent is not present, the case is adjourned to this date for judgment. Even today the counsel for the respondent called absent and as such I am left with no other alternative except to pronounce the judgment by going through the record. ( 6 ) SINCE the court below recorded a finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and no cross appeal has been filed against that finding, I need not go into that aspect. ( 6 ) SINCE the court below recorded a finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and no cross appeal has been filed against that finding, I need not go into that aspect. Now, this Court has to see whether the compensation awarded by the Court below is just and proper. ( 7 ) UNDER the Motor Vehicles Act compensation is payable both for general damages as well as for special damages. Admittedly, as per the evidence of the doctor who treated the appellant in the Government hospital, she was admitted to hospital on 22-09-1994 and she was discharged on 27-12-1994. As per the wound certificate she had a crush injury on the left thigh and fracture on the left pubic bone and she was treated with skin grafting. He also stated that there is loss of muscle around the left thigh, and as such the disability of the lower limb is estimated at 30%. He also stated that in view of the injuries received by the appellant she cannot attend to any work involving hard labour. In the crossexamination the counsel for the respondent could not discredit the evidence of the doctor. ( 8 ) COMING to the compensation to be awarded since the appellant/claimant was in the Government hospital at a far of place from her native place for over three months i feel that the amount claimedby her towards pain and suffering and agony is reasonable. Likewise the claim of the appellant for the injuries suffered by her at Rs. 10,000 / - is also justified. Though she claimed Rs. 10,000/- for loss of expectancy of life and for loss of amenities and support, I feel it should be converted as the claim for permanent disability sustained by her as estimated by the Doctor at 30% coupled with the fact that she cannot attend to any hard labour in future. She being a labourer, due to this accident, she lost her working capacity and therefore, for the said loss of earning capacity, she claimed Rs. 60,000/-, Even at the rate of rs. She being a labourer, due to this accident, she lost her working capacity and therefore, for the said loss of earning capacity, she claimed Rs. 60,000/-, Even at the rate of rs. 30/- per day that is being paid by the some contractors in violation of the prescribed wages under Minimum Wages act, the loss of earning capaciry of the appellant for the rest of her life since she is only 22 years old, can be arrived at a reasonable sum of Rs. 60,000/ -. For medicines, attendant and special diet, the appellant claimed Rs. 3,000/ -. Of course, no bills in proof of purchase of medicines and having taken the special diet were filed. But the fact remains that she underwent treatment as an inpatient in Government General hospital for a period of three months and since the medicines in Government General hospitals are not very much available and since she requires special diet for the injuries sustained in the accident, I feel that the claim for Rs. 3,000/- towards medicines and special diet is also justified. Since the appellant is entitled to receive compensation for loss of earning capacity and grievous injuries, her claim for loss of expectancy of life need not be considered. In all, as per the above calculations, the appellant is entitled to atleast rs. 88,000 /. But since she restricted the claim for only Rs. 50,000/-, I feel that the compensation claimed by the appellant is moderate and the Court below is not justified in awarding a lesser compensation than the compensation claimed in the petition. Hence, the award of the Tribunal in MVOP No. 448 of 1996 on the file of I Additional District judge-cum-Motor Accident claims Tribunal, guntur is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The Tribunal allowed 12% interest on the compensation awarded by it. But the supreme Court ruled that the interest has to be restricted to 9%. Following that Judgment it is held that the interest payable on the amount awarded is restricted to 9% and the same is payable from the date of the petition till the date of payment. No costs. ( 9 ) FROM the injuries sustained by the claimant and the fact that she was treated in the Government hospital for about three months, shows the nature and seriousness of the injuries received by her in the accident. No costs. ( 9 ) FROM the injuries sustained by the claimant and the fact that she was treated in the Government hospital for about three months, shows the nature and seriousness of the injuries received by her in the accident. The learned Judge without awarding the compensation under various heads simply awarded a lump sum amount without any justification. The judgment of the learned judge shows the casual manner and the lack of application of mind on the part of the judicial officers especially either inawarding or disallowing the compensation claimed by the victims or their legal representatives in the cases arising under Motor Vehicle accidents. With the rtsult, I have a feeling that justice is the casualty while some officers awarding compensation more liberally, some officers are awarding compensation as per their whims and fancies without reference to the law of the land laid down by the superior courts. Such type of disposal of motor vehicle accident claims cases by the judicial officers is highly deprecated. No costs.