Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 79 (AP)

A. Chalapati v. Sathyanarayana. N. Nuwal

2010-02-15

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2010
ORDFR This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of award dated 15.11.2005 in O.P.No.119 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle (for short, "the Tribunal"). 2. The appellant filed this appeal feeling partly aggrieved by the abovementioned award to the extent of the Tribunal disallowing his claim towards compensation. 3. I have heard Sri M. Venkatramana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. There is no representation for respondent No.1 in spite of service of notice. Despite service of notice, Sri B. Devanand, learned counsel, who entered appearance for respondent No.4, is not present. Though respondent No.3 is not served, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that no relief is claimed against her and therefore non-service of notice on her is inconsequential. 4. The appellant was the driver of lorry bearing registration No. AP 03 T 9625 owned by respondent No.3. The said lorry is insured with respondent No.4. Respondent No.1 is the owner of lorry bearing registration No. AP 03 W 657, which was insured with respondent No.2. On 22.07.2002, at about 11.00 a.m., the lorry driven by the appellant collided with the lorry owned by respondent No.1 near Mouza Hajra on NH7 road. The appellant received severe injuries and was admitted to Medical College Hospital, Nagpur. His case is that after receiving treatment for some time, he got himself discharged against medical advice and has taken treatment from Dr. M. Sanjeeva Rayudu of Madanapalle and that later he has taken treatment as an inpatient in the hospital owned by Dr. K. Viswakiran Reddy, who was examined as PW.2, from 16.12.2002 to 29.01.2003 and as out-patient from 29.01.2003 till April, 2003. The appellant claimed that he has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20% and has incurred expenses towards purchase of medicines to a tune of Rs. 51,032=24 ps apart from paying fees of Rs. 40,000/- to PW.2. 5. The Tribunal has framed three issues. Issue No.1 relating to rash and negligent driving was later amended. Under the said issue, the Tribunal found that the vehicle owned by respondent No.1 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and was responsible for causing of the accident. 51,032=24 ps apart from paying fees of Rs. 40,000/- to PW.2. 5. The Tribunal has framed three issues. Issue No.1 relating to rash and negligent driving was later amended. Under the said issue, the Tribunal found that the vehicle owned by respondent No.1 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and was responsible for causing of the accident. As regards the compensation under issue No.2, the Tribunal rejected the plea of the appellant that he suffered physical disability to the extent of 20%, while rejecting the bunch of medical bills filed through Ex.A7 for Rs.51,032=24 ps., and awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards medical expenses and granted Rs. 12,500/- towards compensation for grievous fracture injury and Rs. 22,500/- for pain and suffering. 6. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the Tribunal fell into serious errors in rejecting the opinion of PW.2 regarding the nature of permanent disability, rejecting the medical bills on the one hand and not granting Rs. 40,000/- paid towards the doctor's fee on the other. 7. A perusal of the reasons contained in the award of the Tribunal shows that it rejected the medical bills marked under Ex.A7 on the ground that the person, who is connected with issuance of medical bills, was not examined. I am afraid this approach of the Tribunal cannot be appreciated. It is not the case of the respondents that the appellant has produced fake medical bills. Curiously, while refusing to accept Ex.A7, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards medical expenses. This clearly shows that the Tribunal is conscious of the fact that the injury suffered by the appellant, which is described by it as grave, required medical expenditure. The Tribunal has not given any reason for restricting the medical expenses to Rs. 40,000/- as against the sum of Rs. 51,032=24 ps claimed by the appellant under Ex.A7 bills. Similarly, the Tribunal has adopted a pedantic approach in not believing the evidence of PW.2 Orthopaedic Surgeon that he has received Rs. 40,000/- on the ground that he failed to produce the registers and accounts reflecting such receipt. This approach of the Tribunal is wholly unrealistic, to say the least. 51,032=24 ps claimed by the appellant under Ex.A7 bills. Similarly, the Tribunal has adopted a pedantic approach in not believing the evidence of PW.2 Orthopaedic Surgeon that he has received Rs. 40,000/- on the ground that he failed to produce the registers and accounts reflecting such receipt. This approach of the Tribunal is wholly unrealistic, to say the least. There cannot be a better person than the surgeon, who treated the appellant as in-patient for a substantially long period from 6.12.2002 to 29.01.2003 and as out-patient from 29.01.2003 till the end of April, 2003, to testify receipt of the fees. In the absence of any allegation that the doctor colluded with the appellant, I do not find any reason for the Tribunal to reject the evidence of PW.2. On both these counts, the Tribunal committed a serious error. 8. As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the evidence of PW.2 regarding the permanent disability is rejected without any basis, I find force in the said contention as well. PW.2 is a qualified Orthopaedic surgeon. Undisputedly, he has treated the appellant. He has categorically deposed that the appellant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20% on account of shortening of leg. However, by a strange process reasoning the Tribunal rejected this evidence by stating that the appellant has not obtained a certificate from the medical board. The Tribunal has not traced any statutory provision under which medical board is constituted and obtaining of the permanent disability certificate from the medical board is made obligatory for claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 9. In my considered opinion, nothing more is required than the testimony of the qualified Orthopaedic surgeon, who treated the appellant, to show that the appellant has suffered the permanent disability to the extent of 20%. Unless the Court finds the evidence of the doctor not worthy of acceptance by giving cogent reasons, the opinion of a qualified doctor, that too, of the doctor who conducted the surgery and treated the patient, cannot be discredited. 10. For the abovementioned reasons, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed to the following extent. 1. The appellant is entitled to the balance sum of Rs. 11,032/- towards medical expenses under Ex.A7 bills. 2. The appellant is entitled to the sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards the doctor's fees paid by him to PW.2. 3. 10. For the abovementioned reasons, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed to the following extent. 1. The appellant is entitled to the balance sum of Rs. 11,032/- towards medical expenses under Ex.A7 bills. 2. The appellant is entitled to the sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards the doctor's fees paid by him to PW.2. 3. The appellant is also entitled to another sum of Rs. 12,500/- in addition to Rs. 12,500/- already granted for permanent disability. 4. Thus, in all the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 63,532/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant is also entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the abovementioned sum from the date of the petition till the date of payment.