Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1507 (AP)

Syed Saleem v. Abdul Shukur

2006-11-30

GHULAM MOHAMMED

body2006
JUDGMENT All these three appeals arise out of the Common award dated 16-08-1999 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-I Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Saroornagar, hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. CMA No.164 of 2000 is filed against the award in O.P. No. 339 of 1997. CMA No.1257 of 2000 is filed against the award in O.P. No.345 of 1997 and CMA No.1281 of 2000 is filed against the award in O.P. No. 340 of 1997. 3. By the impugned common award, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- as against the claim of Rs. 80,000/- in O.P. No.339 of 1997, a sum of Rs.15,000/-, as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- in O.P. No.345 of 1997 and a sum of Rs.15,000/- as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- in O.P. No.340 of 1997 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit, with proportionate costs. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the claimants in the respective OPs have filed these appeals seeking enhancement of compensation 4. The facts stated are thus: On the intervening night of 4/5-11-1996,the claimants-appellants herein along with others were returning in a jeep to Sadashivpet after attending marriage at Hyderabad and at that time a lorry bearing registration No. AP 9T 2465 came in the opposite direction in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the jeep in which the claimants were travelling, due to the impact of the accident, the claimants received injuries and they were hospitalized. 5. It is stated that the claimant in O.P. No.339 of 1997 received injuries to his waist and filed copy of the X-ray report of CDR hospital EX.A-6 and EX.A-7 medical prescriptions. He also filed disability certificate issued by P.W.5 Doctor. According to P.W.5, the claimant sustained 35% permanent partial disability due to mal-united facture. 6. It is stated that the claimant in O.P. No.345 of 1997 sustained injuries to her abdom in, legs and other parts of the body and she was treated in Gandhi Hospital for 20 days. She filed EX.A-20 copy of the O.P. ticket issued by the Gandhi Hospital to show that she was in hospital for 13 days undergoing treatment. EX.A-20 is the disability certificate issued by P.W.5 Doctor. She filed EX.A-20 copy of the O.P. ticket issued by the Gandhi Hospital to show that she was in hospital for 13 days undergoing treatment. EX.A-20 is the disability certificate issued by P.W.5 Doctor. According to P.W.5, the claimant sustained 50% permanent partial disability due to mal-united fracture and dislocation of vertibra. 7. It is stated that the claimant in O.P. No.340 of 1997 sustained fracture injuries and she was treated in Gandhi Hospital for a month. She filed Exs.A-11 and A-12 copies of the O.P. ticket issued by the Gandhi Hospital to show that she was in hospital for a month undergoing treatment. According to P.W.5 Doctor, the claimant sustained 50% permanent partial disability due to fracture. 8. The Tribunal basing on the respective pleadings, framed necessary issues. As regards the culpability in causing the accident, the Tribunal, on evidence, held that the· accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accident lorry by its driver and inasmuch as No appeal is filed either by the driver of the accident lorry or by the and respondent-insurance company, the said finding became final and no interference is warranted. 9. Now the point remains to be considered is as to the adequacy or otherwise of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. Mr. K.L.N. Rao, learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in not considering the disability certificate issued by P.W.5 doctor certifying the disability sustained by the claimants. Learned counsel further contends that any qualified doctor can assess the loss of disability vis-a-vis earning capacity, as is done in this case, and the exception taken by the Tribunal that the doctor who has actually treated the claimants was not examined cannot be fatal to the case of the claimants. In support of this contention, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Charan Singh v. G. Vittal Reddy. 11. Ms. S.N. Padmini, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-insurance company contended that as no details as to the expenditure incurred towards medical expenses and the bills, and inasmuch as the injuries are simple in nature, the Tribunal awarded reasonable compensation. Learned counsel also contends that there is time gap of nearly 3 years from the date of treatment to the date of obtaining the disability certificate, and thus the disability assessed by P.W.5 doctor, is doubtful. Learned counsel also contends that there is time gap of nearly 3 years from the date of treatment to the date of obtaining the disability certificate, and thus the disability assessed by P.W.5 doctor, is doubtful. 12. There is no dispute as to the date and nature of the accident. It has come in evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 (claimants in O.P. Nos.339, 345 and 340 of 1997) that they have taken treatment for certain period for the injuries sustained by them. It is true that no details to the actual expenditure incurred towards medical treatment were produced, but the fact remains that the OP tickets issued by the CDR hospital and Gandhi Hospital clearly go to show that the claimants sustained injuries and such injuries can be categorized as permanent partial injuries in the light of the evidence of the doctor P.W.5. The evidence of P.W.5 doctor assumes importance as he has deposed with regard to the disability sustained by the claimants. According to P.W.5 doctor, the claimant in O.P. No.339 of 1997 sustained disability of 35%and the other claimants in O.P. Nos.345 and 340 of 1997sustained disability of 50%. Though learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurance company contended that the evidence of P.W.5 doctor is doubtful, nothing is elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve the disability certificate issued by him. It is not the case of the respondents that P.W.5 was not a qualified doctor. He is an Orthopaedic Surgeon working at District Head Quarters at Sanga Reddy, Medak district. 13.The time gap in obtaining the disability certificate cannot be viewed in isolation as disability cannot be assessed immediately on the next day of the sustaining of the injuries, but naturally the wounds have to be healed so as to make assessment of the disability. The time taken in obtaining the disability certificate, in the instant case, is not too long, to doubt its genuinity. 14.lt is pertinent to note that no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the insurance company, except marking the copy of the insurance policy. The evidence of P. W.5 doctor with regard to his certification of disability sustained by the claimants is to be accepted, though he has not actually treated the claimants, as he is a qualified doctor. I am fortified in my view by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Charan Singhs case (1 supra). The evidence of P. W.5 doctor with regard to his certification of disability sustained by the claimants is to be accepted, though he has not actually treated the claimants, as he is a qualified doctor. I am fortified in my view by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Charan Singhs case (1 supra). The relevant portion of para 9 of the judgment reads thus: ".... As it is, Workmens Compensation Act is a beneficial legislation enacted for protecting the interests of workmen who are the victims of accidents during the, course of their employment and therefore clear-cut method has been stipulated in the Act itself. In case of scheduled injuries, even in the absence of any medical evidence, the compensation will automatically follow as per the schedule to the said Act. But the difficulty comes only in the case of non-scheduled injury in respect of which assessment has to be made by the qualified medical practitioner as contemplated under the Act. From this it cannot be concluded that the qualified medical practitioner should be only the medical practitioner who has treated the workmen concerned. If that is to be accepted, it leads to several anomalies. The doctor who treated the workmen may not be available for various reasons and the workmen cannot be expected to stay at a particular station forever. Further the permanent disability cannot be assessed immediately on the next day of the sustaining the injuries. In order to assess the permanent disability naturally, wounds have to be healed so as to make assessment of the permanent disability in relation to loss of earning capacity. The learned single judge has recorded finding in his order that the doctor who treated the workmen ought to have been examined and the certificate issued by the doctor after lapse of time ought not to have been relied on. But under the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under, there is no such requirement to prove the disability by examining the very same doctor who treated the workmen and to obtain such certificate from the very same doctor." 15. But under the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under, there is no such requirement to prove the disability by examining the very same doctor who treated the workmen and to obtain such certificate from the very same doctor." 15. Though the above case arises under the Workmens Compensation Act, the ratio laid down by the Division Bench can be made applicable to the instant case which arises under the Motor Vehicles Act since under the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made there under, there is no requirement to prove the disability by examining the very same doctor who treated the victim and to obtain such certificate from the very same doctor. The ratio can all so be adopted since both the Acts are beneficial legislations. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre and is not in proportion to the injuries sustained by the claimants. Accordingly, compensation awarded in O.P. No.339 of 1997 is enhanced to Rs 40,000/ and to Rs.60,000/- in both the other O.Ps. i.e., O.P.Nos.345 and 340 of 1997. However, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 12% per annum is hereby reduced to 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit, with proportionate costs. 17. In the result the appeals are partly allowed modifying the impugned common judgment to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs in these appeals.