Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 496 (AP)

K. Tataji v. V. Sanjay

2005-06-10

R.SUBHASH REDDY

body2005
JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act), is filed by the appellant claimant, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Guntur (for short the Tribunal), by its order, dated 14-10-2004 in O.P. No.151 of 2003. 2. The appellant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of RS.1,00,000/, on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 5-1-2003. As averred in the claim petition, it was the case of the claimant that he was Ii working as a cleaner in the lorry bearing No. AP 31 W 3437. On 5-1-2003, when the E claimant was on duty in the said lorry, it turned it turned due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. It was stated that in the said accident, the claimant suffered multiple injuries, including fracture to his left leg, and he was shifted to Peoples Trauma and Emergency Hospital, Guntur. On a complaint, a case in Cr. No. 04 of 2004 was registered against the driver of the vehicle for the alleged offence under Section 337 IPC, of Pedakurapadu Police Station. Compensation was claimed on the ground that due to injuries, he suffered disability and he could not continue as cleaner, resulting in deprivation of his livelihood. 3. The first respondent, owner of the lorry, remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent insurer had contested the proceedings before the Tribunal. While generally denying the allegations of the claimant, it was the case of the insurer that the-injuries suffered by the claimant were simple in nature and there was no disability to the claimant. It is further alleged that there is no loss of income to the claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him. It was pleaded that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive and exorbitant, and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. On the above said pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tipper No.A.P.31.W.3437 by, its driver? And if so the petitioner sustained any injuries? (2) What is the just amount of compensation that the petitioner can be granted? (3) To what relief? 5. 4. On the above said pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tipper No.A.P.31.W.3437 by, its driver? And if so the petitioner sustained any injuries? (2) What is the just amount of compensation that the petitioner can be granted? (3) To what relief? 5. On behalf of the claimant, the claimant himself was examined as P.W.1. The doctors, who treated the claimant, were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and Exs.A-1 to A-7 and Exs.X-1 and X-2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 6. Having regard to the evidence on record, the Tribunal below had recorded the finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry, and at the same time, though it was the case of the claimant that at the time of the accident he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month the Tribunal assessed his annual earnings at Rs.15,000/-, and by applying the multiplier 17, awarded compensation to the extent of disability i.e., 15% which comes to Rs.38,250/-. Further, though it was the case of the claimant that he incurred medical expenditure more than Rs.38,000/- and the documentary evidence was filed under Exs.A-5 and A-6, but the Tribunal below had awarded compensation of RS.7,000/-, on account of medical expenses. Thus in all, the Tribunal below awarded total compensation of Rs.45,250/- with interest @ 9% p.a. 7. In this appeal, it is submitted by Sri T.S. Rayalu, learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the disability suffered by the claimant, he is unable to discharge his duties as a cleaner and, in that view of the matter, he is entitled for award of compensation by equating the disability to 100%. Further, it is submitted that, in any event, there is no valid reason for the Tribunal below in restricting the award, only for an amount of RS.7,000/-, on account of medical expenses incurred by him. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the claimant was treated as inpatient for about a month in a private hospital and in spite of the fact that there was evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, the Tribunal below had not considered for awarding just and reasonable compensation, on account of medical expenditure. 8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the claimant was treated as inpatient for about a month in a private hospital and in spite of the fact that there was evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, the Tribunal below had not considered for awarding just and reasonable compensation, on account of medical expenditure. 8. On the other hand, it is1submitted by Sri R.K. Suri, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-insurance company that, though in this case the disability suffered by the claimant is only in the nature of limping, in that view of the matter, the Tribunal itself, in proportion to the percentage of disability, had awarded just and reasonable compensation and no grounds are made out to seek enhancement of compensation on account of disability. Further, it is submitted that even on account of medical expenditure also, in the absence of any clear evidence, the Tribunal below had awarded reasonable compensation of RS.7,000/-, and as such, even on the said aspect, no grounds are made out to enhance the compensation. 9. With reference to the above said contentions it is to be seen, in this case, from the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is clear that the claimant had suffered injuries in the accident, including some grievous injuries. So far the claim on disability is concerned, merely because limping is developed, the claimant is not entitled for equating the disability to cent percent. Even the doctors themselves, who were examined on behalf of the claimant, certified the disability at 15%. With reference to the other evidence on record, the Tribunal itself had awarded just and reasonable compensation in this regard. 10. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that, in view of the disability suffered by the claimant, he cannot continue as a cleaner, cannot be accepted. Though limping is developed, it will not have total effect on the nature of job, which he was doing. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in this regard itself is just and reasonable and there is no ground to enhance the same. However, so far the medical expenditure is concerned, it is not in dispute that the claimant was hospitalized in a private hospital on account of the injuries suffered by him and he had taken treatment in the hospital nearly for one month. However, so far the medical expenditure is concerned, it is not in dispute that the claimant was hospitalized in a private hospital on account of the injuries suffered by him and he had taken treatment in the hospital nearly for one month. The same is evident from the evidence on record. At the same time, the doctors, who treated the claimant, were also examined as P. WS.2 and 3. The claimant claimed an amount of Rs.10,329/-, on account of purchase of medicines vide Exs.A-5 and A-5, and at the same time, he had claimed an amount of Rs.28,000/- on account of the bill paid to the Peoples Trauma and Emergency Hospital, where he was in patient for one month. But, however, the Tribunal below restricted the award to RS.7,000/-, on the ground that no evidence was adduced to prove the said bill. 11. As much as it was not disputed that the claimant was hospitalized and even the doctors, who treated him in the same hospital, were examined, the said claim cannot be rejected on the said ground. It is a quite common practice that, many a time, doctors in these hospitals will prescribe for purchase of important medicines from the medical shops outside. Taking the nature of injuries, period of stay in the hospital, and the documentary evidence under Exs.A-5, A-6 and A-7, into consideration, the claimant can be awarded compensation of RS.20,000/-, on account of medical expenses. 12. In that view of the matter, the compensation of Rs.7,000/-, which is awarded by the Tribunal below, stands enhanced to Rs.20,000/- on account of medical expenses. Thus, in all, the compensation payable to the claimant is fixed at Rs.58,250/-, i.e., Rs.38,250/- towards the disability claimed, and Rs.20,000/-, on account of medical expenses with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization. 13. The CMA is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.