Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1113 (AP)

Cherukuri Parvathi v. P. S. G. Kumar

2010-11-11

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2010
Judgment : This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of award dated 21.02.2003 in O.P.No.193 of 1999 on the file of the I Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur (for short, “the Tribunal”). The claimant in the O.P., who felt dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this appeal. Since the quantum of compensation alone is in dispute, it is not necessary to refer to the manner in which the accident has occurred. It will suffice to note that on account of the accident involving the lorry belonging to respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, the appellant has initially claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. However, on the ground that she has undergone as many as seven operations during the pendency of the O.P., she has enhanced her claim to Rs.3,25,000/- by way of an amendment. The Tribunal has, however, awarded a total compensation of Rs.30,000/- comprising Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and permanent partial disability and Rs.10,000/- towards the expenditure for treatment. At the hearing, Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, has urged two points, namely; that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in not awarding appropriate compensation for permanent partial disability suffered by the appellant and that the Tribunal has ignored the evidence of PW.2, who has categorically deposed that the appellant would have incurred not less than Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. With reference to the first contention of the learned counsel, I have carefully considered the material on record. PW.2, the Doctor, who treated the appellant, inter alia deposed as under: “As per the certificate issued by me, Ms. Ch.Parvathi wife of Brahmaiah sustained compound fracture left leg due to accident sustained in April, 1998 at Kavali in a lorry accident. She was admitted in Kavali hospital and later shifter to my nursing home on 19.01.1998. For the compound fracture sustained she has undergone 8 operations from the date of the admission were roughly about 2 years. Now the patient is having partial and permanent disability because of the shortening restriction of ankle and knee movements and the fracture also has not united. She requires the assistance of support for walking. Because of the above problem she is having partial permanent disability of roughly about 35 to 40%. She cannot attend any agriculture work since the fracture is not united normally. It seems the treatment was nearly extended for 2 years. She requires the assistance of support for walking. Because of the above problem she is having partial permanent disability of roughly about 35 to 40%. She cannot attend any agriculture work since the fracture is not united normally. It seems the treatment was nearly extended for 2 years. The total expenditure would around Rs.1,00,000/-. Ex.A4 is the certificate issued by me. PW.1 is present with the support of a stick in the Court who is treated by me.” Nothing much could be elicited in the cross-examination of PW.2 to discredit the above noted testimony. The Tribunal has discarded the evidence of PW.2 on the sole ground that he has not filed the case sheet. But a perusal of the record shows that the certificate issued by PW.2 has been marked as Ex.A4, wherein he has certified that as many as 8 procedures were done on the appellant commencing from 20th April, 1998 up to 2nd August, 2000. PW.2 has also issued Ex.A3 – permanent disability certificate, wherein it is certified that the appellant has suffered permanent partial disability to the extent of 35% to 40%. This certificate is eschewed by the Tribunal only on the ground that PW.2 himself was not very specific and certain as to the actual percentage of the disability and that he has used the phrase ‘roughly’. In my opinion, the Tribunal has not bestowed the seriousness, the case deserves, in appreciating the evidence on record. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that the appellant has not suffered injury or that the injury suffered by her is not grievous one. Not even a suggestion is put to PW.2, the Doctor, by any of the respondents that in order to help the appellant to claim higher compensation he has come out with false evidence. The reasons on which the Tribunal has ignored the evidence of PW.2 and Ex.A4 are not sound and rational. Having regard to the grievous nature of the injury suffered by the appellant and the prolonged treatment she has received involving repeated procedures, the appellant is certainly entitled to a far higher compensation than what was actually awarded by the Tribunal. Indeed, in Ex.A4, PW.2 has certified that the appellant would have spent around Rs.1,00,000/- for treatment. Having regard to the grievous nature of the injury suffered by the appellant and the prolonged treatment she has received involving repeated procedures, the appellant is certainly entitled to a far higher compensation than what was actually awarded by the Tribunal. Indeed, in Ex.A4, PW.2 has certified that the appellant would have spent around Rs.1,00,000/- for treatment. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to at least Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income on account of permanent partial disability, Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenditure. Thus, in all the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. She is entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of payment. It is made clear that the interest awarded by the Tribunal on Rs.30,000/- shall carry interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. Subject to the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed.