Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 179 (AP)

M. Guru Varun Reddy v. Y. Veera Reddy

2020-03-03

BATTU DEVANAND

body2020
JUDGMENT : This appeal arises under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and order, dated 01-10-2012 in M.V.O.P.No.163 of 2009 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. 2. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the Appeal. 3. As per the averments of the claim petition, the petitioner, who was studying B. Tech at Annamacharya Engineering College, Rajampet, was proceeding to his college on a motorcycle bearing No.A.P.04-G-3087 on 20-07-2007 at about 10 A.M and when he reached Panjabhi Dhabi, on Rajampeta – Kadapa Road, the lorry bearing No.A.P.07-TU-2446 (which will be hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) belonging to the 1st respondent, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction and hit the petitioner, as a result, the petitioner sustained fracture injury to his right leg and three simple injuries. The petitioner further averred that immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Rajampet where he preferred a complaint to the police. Thereafter he was shifted to Mother Hospital, Tirupati for better treatment and from there he was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore where he underwent surgery and discharged. Likewise, the petitioner was admitted and discharged for four times and he spent Rs.4,00,000/-towards hospital charges; Rs.60,000/-towards medicines and extra nourishment’ Rs.45,000/-towards transport charges and Rs.20,000/-towards attendant charges. The petitioner further averred that he joined Engineering College in the month of June, 2007 and paid Rs.75,000/-towards college fee and due to the accident he could not attend the college and also did not appear for Semester examinations and thereby he lost his studies and the college fee was not refunded to him. The petitioner further averred that he sustained permanent disability in the said accident and thus, he claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The petitioner further averred that the 1st respondent is owner of the offending vehicle and 2nd respondent is insurer of the said vehicle and thereby the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 4. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. During the course of trial, the petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-16. 4. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. During the course of trial, the petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-16. There was no oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. 6. The Tribunal after perusing the oral and documentary evidence available on record and upon hearing the counsel, passed decree and order awarding an amount of Rs.1,70,000/-with proportionate costs with future interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till date of deposit by holding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver, in which accident, the petitioner sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation to the petitioner. 7. Dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.1,70,000/-awarded by the Tribunal against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-, the petitioner filed the present appeal. 8. Heard Sri T.S.Rayulu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.A. Jayanthi, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. 9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal granted lesser amount and it ought to have awarded more amount, as the petitioner suffered grievous injury and faced severe mental trauma. 10. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company supported the Award and sought to dismiss the appeal. 11. A perusal of the evidence of the petitioner, who himself examined as PW.1, it shows that he sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident. It appears from the evidence available on record, though the petitioner claimed more compensation basing on the documents i.e., Exs.P-4 to P-16 filed by him before the Tribunal, the concerned persons who issued those medical bills, transport bills and college authorities who issued the fee receipts were not examined. Further, the petitioner also contended that he sustained permanent disability under Ex.P-16 but the Tribunal failed to consider in a proper perspective. More so, the disability was not proved by examining the concerned Doctors who treated him either at Mother Hospital, Tirupati or at Manipal Hospital, Bangalore. 12. Further, the petitioner also contended that he sustained permanent disability under Ex.P-16 but the Tribunal failed to consider in a proper perspective. More so, the disability was not proved by examining the concerned Doctors who treated him either at Mother Hospital, Tirupati or at Manipal Hospital, Bangalore. 12. It is settled law that in the injuries case for determination of compensation, the examination of Doctor who treated the injured and who issued the disability certificate is more essential. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and the victims of the accident shall be given due opportunity to prove the accident and sufferance of disability so as to enable them to claim a just and reasonable compensation. 13. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad Vs. Mohd. Khaj Rasool Sayyed @ Mohd. Khaj a Main Shaik and another, (2003) 5 ALD 162 held that; In view of the aforesaid discussion, it follows that just like any other document, medical evidence has to be produced in proof of the certificates and the bills produced by the claimants and non-production of such medical evidence is fatal. Though, it has been pointed out that in view of the large pendency of cases, no proper opportunity is being given, yet it cannot be said that there is no such requirement of production of medical evidence either directly before the Court or as per the amended provision of Order XVIII Rule 14 C.P.C. by way of affidavits and examining them on Commission. Further, it has to be held that in the absence of any such proof of such documents, the said documents cannot be relied on or accepted, as it would not amount to any legal evidence to rest any findings. Further, it has also to be held that the authorities concerned shall make necessary endeavour to carry out the object as contemplated under Sub-section (3) of Section 169 of the Act by constituting necessary committees or the boards, as the case may be, for the purpose of assisting the Tribunals in regard to the grievousness of the injuries and the extent of disability. Further, it has to be held that in the absence any such evidence either on behalf of the claimants individually or through the boards or committees as provided for, the Court itself cannot go into the question and give any finding on the grievousness of the injuries and the extent of disability. The Hon’ble Court further held that; In view of the reasoning given in the preceding paragraphs, it is necessary to have the proper medical evidence on record for assessing the grievousness of the injuries and also the extent of disability in an enquiry for compensation. Further, it is proper to provide an opportunity to both the sides so that the Court will have proper assistance in coming to a right conclusion. Denying any such opportunity would not only deprives the opportunity to a party and also smacks the very procedure as contemplated under the law. There is absolutely no reason to reject any such application more so when contesting respondent seeks to challenge the grievousness of the injuries and the extent of disability as claimed by the claimant. It is also not correct on the part of the Tribunal to hold that there is no such provision to call for any such evidence. Any such steps is a rebuttal in the process of enquiry to go into the claim for compensation which has to be based on the nature of injuries sustained and extent of disability sustained, without which it is not proper for the Court to fix any quantum as such. 14. Admittedly, in the present case there is no medical evidence available on record for assessing grievousness of the injuries and also the extent of disability for determining the compensation. In the absence of such evidence, it is not proper for this Court to proceed with the matter to determine the just and reasonable compensation. 15. 14. Admittedly, in the present case there is no medical evidence available on record for assessing grievousness of the injuries and also the extent of disability for determining the compensation. In the absence of such evidence, it is not proper for this Court to proceed with the matter to determine the just and reasonable compensation. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the decree and order, dated 01-10-2012 in M.V.O.P.No.163 of 2009 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur and remitted back to the Tribunal for afresh consideration and disposal after giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce their evidence and dispose of the matter on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.