Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1557 (AP)

Batturoo Ravi v. V. Shankar Rao

2006-12-12

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2006
ORDER :-Appellant who suffered injuries in an accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondents. The Tribunal, after trial, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor belonging to the first respondent, awarded Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by the appellant. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to him, the injured preferred this appeal. 2. Since the appeal is by the injured seeking higher compensation than that is awarded to him, the point for consideration in this appeal is "To what compensation is the appellant entitled to?". 3. Unfortunately, the Tribunal without specifying under what head it is awarding what compensation to the appellant, it just stated that it is awarding Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the appellant for the injuries suffered by him. In all claim petitions relating to the injuries suffered by the victims, the Tribunal should specify under what head it is awarding what amount of compensation, so that, the appellate Court can verify and decide whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under a particular head is adequate or is on the higher side. If compensation is awarded in lumpsum, without mentioning the heads under which it was awarded, it would be very difficult for the appellate Court to decide on what basis what amount of compensation is given to the victims and under what head. 4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the second respondent is that since the doctor who treated the appellant is not examined, the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant are not known. I am unable to agree with the said contention. The medical certificate issued by the Government doctor, who first examined the appellant immediately after the accident, on the basis of which the police laid a charge-sheet against the accused, is a piece of evidence to be looked into by the Tribunals even without the evidence of the doctor, in view of Rule 476(7) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. But in respect of disability certificates, issued by doctors relating to the disability of the victims, unless the doctor who issues the certificate is examined as a witness that disability certificate cannot be relied on by the Tribunals, for assessing the disability of the victims. As stated earlier, the wound certificate issued by the Government doctor who examines the victim immediately after the accident, basing on which the police would lay a charge-sheet, can be taken into consideration for deciding the type of injuries suffered by the victim in the accident. Therefore, EX.A28 certificate can be taken into consideration by the Tribunal even without the doctor who issued it being examined. 5. Ex.A27, judgment of the Criminal Court, shows that the driver of the offending vehicle was convicted for an offence under Section 338 IPC for the injuries suffered by the appellant and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.700/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant did suffer grievous injuries as a result of the accident. So he must have undergone pain and suffering. In my considered opinion, an amount of Rs.7,500/- would be a reasonable amount of compensation for the pain and suffering undergone by the appellant. 6. The medical bills produced on behalf of the appellant show that an amount of Rs.5,596-59 was spent for purchase of medicines. Assuming that they relate to some of the medicines purchased, an amount of Rs.6,000/- can be awarded to the appellant towards purchase of medicines. 7. Ex.A5, OP ticket issued by the Vidya Vidhana Parishad, shows that the appellant was admitted as an in-patient ,in the hospital on 20-11-1994 and was discharged on 22-12-1994 and that the wound of the appellant healed to a large extent and hence was fit for discharge. So it is clear that the appellant was an in-patient for one month in the hospital and so he can be awarded Rs.3,000/-towards attendant and transport charges and Rs.2,000/- can be awarded towards extra nourishment. 8. Since the appellant, admittedly, was a student, he did not suffer any loss in his earnings during the period of treatment. So it is clear that the appellant was an in-patient for one month in the hospital and so he can be awarded Rs.3,000/-towards attendant and transport charges and Rs.2,000/- can be awarded towards extra nourishment. 8. Since the appellant, admittedly, was a student, he did not suffer any loss in his earnings during the period of treatment. Since the crush injuries on thigh and forearm with loss of skin would not normally cause permanent disability, and since Ex.A5 shows that the wound of the appellant healed to a large extent, and since there is no medical evidence on record to show that the appellant suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident, assuming that the crush injuries resulting in loss of skin might have caused a deformity in his hand and leg, appellant can be awarded Rs.13,500/-towards the said inconvenience he might have suffered. . 9. Thus the appellant is entitled to Rs.7,500/- + Rs.6,000/- + Rs.3,000/- + Rs.2,000/- + Rs.13,500/- = Rs.32,000/- as compensation for the injuries he suffered in the accident. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified, and an award is passed for Rs.32,000/- in favour of the appellant against the respondents with interest at 12% p.a. on Rs.25,000/-as awarded by the Tribunal, and with interest at 9%· p.a. on Rs.7,000/-awarded in this appeal from this day till the date of deposit into Court with proportionate costs in the Tribunal. Rest of the claim of the appellant is dismissed without costs. The additional amount awarded in this appeal shall be kept in fixed deposit till the appellant attains majority. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal.