Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 137 (AP)

Chavala Mayuri Raye Mayuri v. Narri Lingam

2023-01-19

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

body2023
JUDGMENT : B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the claimant, challenging the award dated 01.10.2015 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 1376/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl. District Judge, Guntur, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) wherein the Tribunal partly allowed the petition, awarded compensation of Rs. 28,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as parties in the M.V.O.P. 3. As seen from the record, the petitioner filed the application U/s. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of the injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.09.2012. 4. The facts would show that on 11.09.2012 at about 03.30 p.m. while she was proceeding from Ballikurava to Ambadipudi in auto bearing No. AP-27-TT-4227, when it reached Guntupalli main road, the driver of lorry bearing No. AP-29-TB-2225, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed and hit the auto, as a result, she sustained injuries, and immediately she was shifted to Government Hospital, Chilakaluripet and later to Government General Hospital, Guntur. The said accident was reported in Ballikurava Police Station and a case in Cr. No. 86/2012 was registered against the driver of lorry bearing No. AP-29-TB-2225. The petitioner was hale and healthy prior to the accident and due to the injuries suffered in the accident, she suffered disability, loss of income, pain and suffering. The 1st respondent is owner of lorry bearing No. AP-29-TB-2225, 2nd respondent is insurer and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable for compensation. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, filed written statement, while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, age and avocation of the petitioner, alleged permanent disability, liability to pay compensation, and contended that the driver of 1st respondent was not having valid and effective driving license during accident and the accident took place due to collision of auto and lorry of 1st respondent. The petition is bad for non-impleadment of owner and insurer of auto and the claim of petitioner is excessive, and there is no negligence on the part of driver of 1st respondent. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte. 6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident caused by vehicle bearing No. AP-29-TB-2225? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? 7. To substantiate her claim, the petitioner examined PWs. 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 and Ex.X-1. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company. 8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-4 and Ex.X-1, held that the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident on 11.09.2012 out of the user of lorry of 1st respondent, and further taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-4 and Ex.X-1, awarded a compensation of Rs. 28,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. 9. This is an appeal filed by the claimant against the order 01.10.2015 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 1376/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl. District Judge, Guntur, on the ground that the Tribunal did not award just compensation inspite of evidence of the doctor, who was examined as PW-2 and deposed about the disability suffered by the claimant and therefore, the Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards compensation under the head loss of earning capacity, and the Tribunal also erred in awarding only Rs. 5,000/- under the head pain and suffering. 10. In the light of above contention raised by the appellant in the appeal, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the Tribunal did not award just compensation to the appellant/claimant? 2. To what relief? 11. 5,000/- under the head pain and suffering. 10. In the light of above contention raised by the appellant in the appeal, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the Tribunal did not award just compensation to the appellant/claimant? 2. To what relief? 11. POINT No. 1: The case of the appellant/claimant is that the claimant is aged around 22 years, and working as coolie on 11.09.2012 at about 04.00 p.m. while the claimant and others were travelling in an auto, and when the auto reached a place near main road, Guntupalli, a lorry came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto, and as a result, the claimant sustained injuries and she was shifted to Chilakaluripet and later to Government General Hospital, Guntur, for better treatment. Police registered a case against the driver of the lorry for the offence punishable U/s. 338 of Indian Penal Code, and later laid police report (charge sheet) against the driver of the lorry for the offence punishable U/s. 338 of Indian Penal Code. The claimant suffered grievous injuries including fracture and crush injury to her left leg, and she spent large amount for treatment, and that she suffered pain and trauma due to injury sustained in the accident, and she also suffered permanent disability due to the injury to her left leg, and she is unable to do any work, and also unable to walk properly and therefore, she filed the petition claiming Rs. 1,50,000/- towards just compensation. 12. The insurer of the lorry opposed the claim on the ground that the accident was occurred due to composite negligence of the driver of the auto and the lorry and that the claim is excessive. 13. The Tribunal upon consideration of the evidence of the claimant, and the documents produced by her, held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the lorry. 14. The Tribunal upon consideration of the claimant as PW-1 and the doctor, who was examined as PW-2, held that there is no material produced by the claimant to prove the disability and the evidence of PW-2, will not help the case of the claimant without disability certificate and did not award any amount under the head of loss of earning on account of permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the injuries; Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance and special diet charges; Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment, in all Rs. 28,000/- out of the claim amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 15. The Learned counsel for appellant/claimant vehemently argued that the claimant has examined the doctor, who treated her as PW-2 and his evidence established that the claimant suffered a lacerated wound over lateral aspect of left ankle, and x-ray revealed fracture lateral malleolus of left ankle, and the doctor opined that the claimant suffered permanent partial disability of 10% and the claimant proved the injuries sustained by her are grievous in nature, and also proved the permanent partial disability suffered by her and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal is not based on evidence. 16. The claimant in her chief-examination stated that she received injuries including fracture and crush injury to her left leg and as a result, she suffered disability, and as a result, she suffered disability and she is unable to do any hard work, as she is not able to walk properly due to the injuries. In the cross-examination, it was elicited that the claimant has been experiencing pain and she is not doing any work due to pain in the leg, and prior to the accident, she was working as coolie. 17. PW-2 is a doctor. His evidence would establish that on 12.09.2012 the claimant was admitted in Government General Hospital, Guntur and she suffered 10 x 2 cm. lacerated wound over lateral aspect of left ankle, and x-ray was taken for the injury and it revealed fracture lateral malleolus of left ankle, and she was treated conservatively and discharged on 28.09.2012 and he examined the claimant in the Court premises on the date of his evidence and he found mild to moderate restriction in left ankle movements and mild deformity of left ankle, and he is of the opinion that the claimant is having permanent partial disability of 10%. In the cross-examination, it was elicited that the claimant will face difficulty in lifting weights, though she can attend normal activities. 18. In the cross-examination, it was elicited that the claimant will face difficulty in lifting weights, though she can attend normal activities. 18. In the light of above evidence of the claimant, and the doctor, who treated her, it is established that the claimant suffered a fracture and crush injury to her left leg in the accident, and she was admitted in Government General Hospital, Guntur, on 12.09.2012 and as in-patient she was treated for the injury and discharged on 28.09.2012, and the evidence of PW-2 further established that there is a mild to moderate restriction of left ankle movement and mild deformity of left ankle, due to the fracture of left ankle sustained in the accident, and on account of the said injury, she will face difficulty in lifting weights. Therefore, it is established that the claimant will face some inconvenience while attending her coolie work which she was attending without any pain prior to the date of accident, and further, she is facing some mild to moderate restrictions of left ankle movements due to injury. 19. In that view of the matter, she can be awarded some compensation under the loss of amenities, though she can attend coolie work after healing of the injury, and there is no loss of earnings on account of the injury, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, 2011 (1) SCC 343 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “in routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life can be awarded” in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 20. Considering the above facts and inconvenience faced by the claimant on account of the restricted movements of the left ankle and mild deformity of the left ankle, an amount of Rs. 75,000/- can be awarded to the claimant under the head loss of amenities, in addition to Rs. 28,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 21. 20. Considering the above facts and inconvenience faced by the claimant on account of the restricted movements of the left ankle and mild deformity of the left ankle, an amount of Rs. 75,000/- can be awarded to the claimant under the head loss of amenities, in addition to Rs. 28,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 21. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. The accident occurred in the year 2012, and the claimant filed petition in the year 2012. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jakir Hussein vs. Sabir, (2015) 7 SCC 2154 which referred another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, (2011) 14 SC 481 granted interest @ 9% p.a. 22. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit of compensation amount. Accordingly, the point is answered. 23. POINT No. 2: To what relief? In the light of findings on points No. 1, the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified. 24. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the award dated 01.10.2015 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 1376/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl. District Judge, Guntur. It is held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,03,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Three Thousand only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, instead of Rs. 28,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand only). The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs. 1,03,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Three Thousand only), along with the accrued interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment. 25. In the event of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company already deposited some amount, the said amount has to be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within one month from the date of judgment. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs. 1,03,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Three Thousand only) along with accrued interest thereon. In the event of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company already deposited some amount, the said amount has to be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within one month from the date of judgment. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs. 1,03,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Three Thousand only) along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs. 26. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.