Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 416 (AP)

Thirumala Ramesh v. K. Lakshmi Devi Others

2020-06-15

BATTU DEVANAND

body2020
JUDGMENT Battu Devanand, J. - Challenging the award dated 30.09.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.97 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anantapur (for short "the tribunal"), the claimant-petitioner preferred this appeal. 2. The parties hereinafter called as petitioners and respondents as arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimant is that on 10.10.2009 at about 4-20 p.m he was proceeding on his Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.A.P.02 P 6806 along with his wife and daughter on Kalyandurg - Anantapur road. The petitioner was riding motorcycle and his wife Smt.Rajeswari and his 5 years old daughter Yeshaswini were pillion riders. Near Pathacheruvu village, one TATA 407 van bearing No.A.P.02 T 9702 (hereinafter referred to as "offending van") dashed the motorcycle due to rash and negligent driving of the van by its driver. The petitioner, his wife and daughter fell from the motorcycle and sustained injuries. His daughter Yeshaswini died on the spot. The police of Kalyandurg Rural Police Station registered a case in Crime No.105 of 2009 and after completing the investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending van for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Kalyandurg and there he was treated as inpatient for one day. Later he was shifted to Asha Hospital, Ananatapur for better treatment and there he was treated as in-patient for 10 days. He also took treatment for his teeth at Jayam Dental Super Specialty Hospital, Anantapur. Still, the petitioner is taking treatment as out patient. He spent Rs.1,10,000/- towards medical and attendant charges. He was running a hotel in SK University and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the accident he is unable to do his day to day works. The respondents 1 and 2 are the owners of the offending van involved in the accident and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the said offending van. The petitioner claims compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondents who are jointly and severally liable to pay him compensation claim. 4. The 1st respondent remained exparte. 5. The 2nd respondent filed counter pleading that long back he sold the van and he has nothing to do with the van and he was unnecessarily added as a respondent. 6. The petitioner claims compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondents who are jointly and severally liable to pay him compensation claim. 4. The 1st respondent remained exparte. 5. The 2nd respondent filed counter pleading that long back he sold the van and he has nothing to do with the van and he was unnecessarily added as a respondent. 6. The 3rd respondent-insurance company filed counter denying the accident and contended that the petitioner contributed to the accident as there was head on collision between both the vehicles. The 3rd respondent also averred that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are only simple injuries and the compensation claimed is highly excessive. 7. During trial PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. There is no oral evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents. The 3rd respondent got marked copy of the insurance policy as Ex.B.1. Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked through PW.2 and Ex.X.3 was marked through PW.3. 8. The tribunal basing on the oral and documentary evidence has held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending van by its driver. With regard to compensation is concerned, the tribunal awarded Rs.35,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit under different heads as below: a) for pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/- b) for medical expenditure Rs. 2,575/- c) for medicines, extra nourishment and attendant charges, etc. Rs. 12,000/- The tribunal assessed the compensation of Rs.34,575/- which was rounded off to Rs.35,000/-. 9. The petitioner filed the present appeal challenging the inadequacy of the compensation. 10. Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the appellantpetitioner and Sri Naresh Byrapuneni, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-insurance company. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tribunal erred in awarding a meager sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record in its proper perspective. He contends that the disability was not assessed and very meager amount was granted for medical expenses and the amounts considered by the tribunal is also on lower side. 12. He contends that the disability was not assessed and very meager amount was granted for medical expenses and the amounts considered by the tribunal is also on lower side. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company-3rd respondent submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal was just and reasonable in the light of the evidence available on record and there is no need to intervene by this Court to revise the same and thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 13. In the light of the above rival arguments, the point for determination in this appeal is; Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable or needs enhancement? 14. Upon perusal of the evidence available on record and hearing both sides, it has to be noted that the petitioner who was examined as PW.1, deposed that he received injuries on his right lower leg, cut laceration over left knee joint, fracture left shoulder and damage of the teeth of lower jaw and upper jaw. The wound certificate which was marked as Ex.A.2 shows that the petitioner received the following injuries: 1) Cut laceration over frontal region, 12 x 1 x cm, 2) Cut laceration over lower lip (middle), 2 x 1 x 1 cm, 3) Deformity over left arm, 4) Avulsion of the skin present over right lower leg, 4 x 5 cm, and 5) Cut laceration present over left knee joint, 3 x 5 cm. 15. The Doctor who issued Ex.A.2 was examined as PW.4. He deposed that X-ray of left shoulder AP view revealed fracture lateral border of scpula infra gleniod region. He opined that injury No.3 is grievous in nature and the other injuries are simple in nature. Dr. A. Atma Rao, who was examined as PW.3, deposed that "on 13.10.2009 Dr.Akshay, who was working in their hospital at that time examined the petitioner. PW.3 brought the case sheet of the petitioner which was marked as Ex.X.3. It is in the hand writing of Dr. Akshay who is now at Aurangabad. The petitioner sustained poly trauma with multiple lacerations and pain in left shoulder. X-ray showed that the petitioner sustained fracture of neck of left scapula. The petitioner sustained grievous injury. The petitioner was discharged on 17.10.2009. The bills under Ex.A.6 were issued by their hospital pharmacy". Dr. Akshay who is now at Aurangabad. The petitioner sustained poly trauma with multiple lacerations and pain in left shoulder. X-ray showed that the petitioner sustained fracture of neck of left scapula. The petitioner sustained grievous injury. The petitioner was discharged on 17.10.2009. The bills under Ex.A.6 were issued by their hospital pharmacy". Dr. Bharat Kumar, who was examined as PW.2, deposed in his evidence that "on 14.11.2009 the petitioner came to his clinic, Jayam Dental Hospital and told him that he lost upper right lincisor in a road accident occurred on 10.10.2009 and he took treatment on 14.11.2009. PW.2 further deposed that he prepared bridge and fixed it on 27.11.2009. He charged Rs.5,500/- and issued Ex.X.2." 16. As per medical evidence on record, the petitioner sustained one grievous injury and four simple injuries. The petitioner was underwent treatment for seven days. Considering the nature of injuries, the tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner for pain and suffering. In the opinion of this Court, the tribunal ought to have considered that the petitioner sustained fracture of neck of left scapula which is a grievous injury as per the evidence of Doctors, who were examined as PWs.3 and 4. In fact, the accident was occurred on 10.10.2009 and in that accident the petitioner's five years old daughter Yeshaswini died on the spot, it itself shows the gravity of the incident. The tribunal in my opinion erred in not considering the evidence of PW.2, who deposed that he prepared bridge and fixed it on 27.11.2009 and charged Rs.5,500/- and issued Ex.X.2. The tribunal also failed to consider the fact that due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, he will not be in a position to attend his normal work for running his hotel in SK University. The tribunal ought to have granted reasonable amount for loss of his earnings due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Though Ex.A.6 bills submitted for Rs.16,262/-, the tribunal awarded Rs.2,575/- only disputing the dates contained on Ex.A.6 bills. 17. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner sustained one grievous fracture injury to neck of left scapula and four simple injuries and took treatment in a Government Hospital and in a private hospital and took treatment in Jayam Dental Hospital, he deserves a reasonable amount towards medical expenditure. In such consideration, the petitioner is entitled Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenditure including purchase of medicines. In such consideration, the petitioner is entitled Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenditure including purchase of medicines. He is also entitled for Rs.25,000/- towards one grievous fracture injury. He is entitled for Rs.5,000/- to each simple injury and as such he is entitled for Rs.20,000/- towards four simple injuries. In view of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, he ought not to have attended his normal works for which he sustained loss of income to maintain his family. In view of the injuries, he ought to have taken rest at least for two months and Rs.5,000/- per month is taken as his loss of earnings and accordingly Rs.10,000/- is awarded under this head for two months. The amount of Rs.12,000/- awarded for extra nourishment and attendant charges, etc., is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- basing on the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the total compensation payable to the petitioner under different heads can be detailed as below: For fracture injury : Rs.25,000-00 For four simple injuries : Rs.20,000-00 For medical expenditure : Rs.20,000-00 For extra nourishment, transportation, etc. : Rs.20,000-00 For loss of income for two months at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month : Rs.10,000-00 18. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and ordered as follows: a) The compensation enhanced by Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) with proportionate costs. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of O.P. till the date of realization. b) The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one (01) month from the date of this judgment; failing which execution can be taken out against them. (c) The tribunal shall disburse the compensation amount after payment of the requisite Court Fee on the enhanced amount. (d) the other directions of the tribunal with respect to liability and interest of the compensation shall remain; (e) there shall, however, be no order as to costs in this appeal. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.