Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 480 (AP)

K. Sathayanarayana v. Vijayalaxmi

2009-07-21

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2009
JUDGMENT :- The appellant filed O.P.No.588 of 1990 in the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondents, claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/-, as compensation, for the injuries received by him in an accident, that occurred on 08-05-1990. It was pleaded that he boarded an auto bearing No.AP-10-T-342, owned by the 1st respondent, and insured with the 2nd respondent, at 3:30 p.m., on that day, with a view to travel from Tarnaka to Lalapet, and that, on the way, the auto dashed against a stationed lorry, resulting in grievous injuries and fracture to him. Crime No.77 of 1990 was registered against the driver of the auto, and the appellant was treated in Gandhi Hospital. It was pleaded that he was bedridden for quite a long time, and the disability persisted even after treatment. The 1st respondent remained ex parte, and the O.P., was opposed by the 2nd respondent alone. The facts pleaded by the appellant were denied, and the 2nd respondent pleaded that it is not liable to pay the compensation. It was also alleged that the Driver of the auto did not hold valid driving licence. Through its order dated 09-03-1993, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.22,500/- as compensation. It was held that the 1st respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation. The appellant not only seeks enhancement of the compensation, but also feels aggrieved by the exclusion of the 2nd respondent, from liability. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. To prove his case, the appellant deposed as PW-1, and filed Ex.A-1, certified copy of the FIR; Ex.A-2, the O.P description, and Ex.A-3, the medical certificate, issue by the Osmania General Hospital. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, RW-1 was examined, and Exs,A-1 to X-7 were filed. As observed earlier, the Tribunal awarded Rs.22,500/-as compensation, and held that the 1st respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation. Two questions arise for consideration in this appeal, viz., a) whether the 2nd respondent is liable to pay the compensation, and b) whether the appellant is entitled for any enhancement of compensation? The accident occurred on account of the dashing of the auto rickshaw, in which the appellant was traveling, against a stationed lorry. This is born out by Ex.A-1, and no evidence to the contrary was adduced. The accident occurred on account of the dashing of the auto rickshaw, in which the appellant was traveling, against a stationed lorry. This is born out by Ex.A-1, and no evidence to the contrary was adduced. The only basis on which the 2nd respondent wanted to extricate itself from the liability to pay the compensation was, that the driver of the auto did not hold valid driving licence. It was rather interesting to note that the 2nd respondent entrusted the investigation to verify the existence of valid licence to one A. Anantacharyulu, RW-1. He is said to have caused investigation through M/s Deshpande Associates. That agency is said to have approached the Regional Transport Authority, Secunderabad, to know whether the licence of the driver of the auto rickshaw, by name, Srinivas, was subsisting as on the date of accident. According to the information received from the office, the validity of the licence is said to have expired on 19-01-1990. The correspondence in this regard was marked as Exs.X-1 to X-7. The Tribunal accepted this evidence and formed an opinion that the driver of the auto did not hold valid licence, and on that basis, relieved the 2nd respondent from the liability. This Court is of the view that the approach of the Tribunal was totally untenable. If the dispute is, as to whether the driver of the auto held valid licence, the only person, who could have spoken about it, was the driver himself. The verification of the records of the Regional Transport Authority. Secunderabad, that too, with the medium of private investigating agency, is totally irrelevant for this purpose. It is not as if that office alone is competent to issue licences for everyone in the State. In every district there are licensing authorities, and in some districts, more than one. Had the 2nd respondent taken steps to secure the presence of the driver and elicited necessary information as to the existence of licence, it would certainly have been relevant. No such effort was made. The 2nd respondent cannot be relieved from its obligation, on the strength of such inadmissible, irrelevant and unrelated evidence. Therefore, the first question is answered in favour of the appellant. As regards the second question, Exs.A-2 and A-3 disclose that the appellant suffered a fracture injury. He remained as inpatient in the Osmania General Hospital for about one month. The 2nd respondent cannot be relieved from its obligation, on the strength of such inadmissible, irrelevant and unrelated evidence. Therefore, the first question is answered in favour of the appellant. As regards the second question, Exs.A-2 and A-3 disclose that the appellant suffered a fracture injury. He remained as inpatient in the Osmania General Hospital for about one month. Operation was conducted upon him on 23-05-1990. Towards pain and suffering and other heads, a sum of Rs.20,000/-is awarded for every fracture injury. If the treatment is for a prolonged period, and if there exists the impact of the injury for the rest of life, the compensation under different heads is to be awarded. The sum of Rs.22,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low. This Court is of the view that it deserves to be enhanced by Rs.5,000/-. Hence, the appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation by Rs.5,000/-(five thousand), and directing that the 2nd respondent shall be liable to pay the compensation. In case the appellant has recovered any amount from the 1st respondent, it shall be deducted from the amount that is payable by the 2nd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.