Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 561 (AP)

Kovvuri Gopala Krishna Reddy v. Shaik Jelani

2023-03-16

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT : The appellant is the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.549 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-(Principal District Judge) East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, and the respondents herein are the respondents in the said case. 2. The parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The claimant has filed a claim petition under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for seeking compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 04.12.2008. at about 03:30 PM. 4. The case of the petitioner is as follows: On 04.12.2008 at about 03:30 P.M., while he was proceeding from Mandapeta to Pasalapudi village on Super Splendor Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing No.AP 5 AR 6043 very slowly and cautiously on the left side of road and when he reached Veerabharapuram, at that time the 1st respondent drove lorry bearing No.AP 37 W 7556 in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction and dashed the motor cycle on which the petitioner was proceeding due to which the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. 5. The 1st and 2nd respondents remained ex parte. 6. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement denying the material pleas taken by the petitioner and putting the petitioner to establish the same strictly and specifically and setting out its defenses with a plea to dismiss the petition ultimately. 7. Based on the above pleadings the, Tribunal framed following issues: 1) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing Registration No. AP 07 U 2385? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation amount claimed? If so from which of the respondents? 3) To what relief? 8. On behalf of the Petitioners, PW1 to PW5 are examined, Ex.A.1 to A.7 and Exs.X1 to X4 are marked. On behalf of the respondents, nobody has been examined but Ex.B1 copy of Insurance policy has been marked. 9. Now the point for consideration are: 1) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 2) Whether the appellant is entitled enhancement of claim as prayed for? POINT NO.1 & 2: 10. On behalf of the respondents, nobody has been examined but Ex.B1 copy of Insurance policy has been marked. 9. Now the point for consideration are: 1) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 2) Whether the appellant is entitled enhancement of claim as prayed for? POINT NO.1 & 2: 10. The petitioner pleaded that on the report given by him the case was registered in Cr.No.103/08 on the file of Alamuru police station against the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 37 W 7556. 11. In order to prove the case of the petitioner the petitioner relied on his self-testimony as PW1. He deposed in his evidence that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry i.e., 1st respondent this accident was happened and the 1st respondent drove the lorry bearing No.AP 37 W 7556 in a rash and negligent manner in a opposite direction and dashed the motor cycle of the petitioner due to which, the petitioner fell down and received injuries. In support of the evidence of PW1 the petitioner also relied on Ex.A1 attested copy of FIR and Ex.A3 attested copy of charge sheet, the Ex.A1 and A3 coupled with the evidence of PW1 clearly goes to show about the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent driver of the lorry and due to his rash and negligence driving, only the accident is happened. The learned Tribunal also gave the said finding in its order dated 07.01.2011. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the learned Tribunal. 12. In order to prove the claim of the petitioner and in order to prove his injuries the petitioner got examined three doctors as PW2 to PW4. As per the evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A2 wound certificate, and Ex.X1 case sheet, the petitioner/claimant sustained six grievous injuries and one simple injury and Ex.A7 is bunch of bills also marked through him, in cross-examination nothing was elicited form PW2 to discredited the testimony of PW2, PW3, who is another Doctor, he is practising as an Orthopaedic surgeon deposed in his evidence that on 10.12.2008, the petitioner was shifted to his hospital as in-patient and as per the discharge record, he sustained the eight fractures and all the fractures grievous in nature, and he conducted four surgeries and Ex.X2 are the X-rays (24 in number). He conducted 4 surgeries on 14.12.2008 and 16.02.2008, two operations of right femur and right tibia fixing screw and plates and another two operations of right radius and left radius again by fixing plates and screws. 13. PW4 another Doctor Vatti Ganga Kishore has deposed in his evidence he is workings as a Plastic Surgeon in Medicare Hospital, Rajahmundry and he was a consultant to Apex Hospital, on 07.12.2008, split skin grafting was done to the petitioner. 14. The evidence of PW2 to PW4 coupled with documentary evidence clearly supports about the eight grievous injuries sustained by the claimant and four operations were conducted to the claimant, the learned Tribunal has granted Rs.1,20,000/- in total for eight grievous fracture injuries @ Rs.15,000/- is awarded for each grievous injury. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal, the medical bills Ex.A7 clearly goes to show that the petitioner incurred medical expenses of Rs.2,41,433/-the same amount was awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding and the Tribunal also granted Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment food and transportation charges because, the petitioner underwent long treatment and underwent four surgeries. As per the case of the petitioner, he is doing coolie work being aged 38 years working as School Assistant, Sri Rama Hindu Municipal Upper Primary School, Mandapeta getting Rs.17,128/- per month, after the accident he took treatment in Apex Hospital, Rajahmundry as in-patient for 7 days. In order to prove the income of the petitioner, he examined Head Master of Sri Rama Upper Primary School, Mandapeta as PW5. In order to prove the income of the petitioner, he examined Head Master of Sri Rama Upper Primary School, Mandapeta as PW5. As per the evidence of PW5, the petitioner/claimant, is working as School Assistant in their school since August, 2005 and issued Ex.A6 salary certificate and he also brought attendance register of the School attested by a Gazetted officer and the petitioner was on medical leave from afternoon on 04.12.2008 to 17.04.2009 following the accident and Ex.X4 is a copy of attendance register and as per his evidence his net salary Rs.16,938/-, the evidence of PW1, Ex.A6, Ex.X3 and X4 is supporting the income of the petitioner/claimant, the Trial Court after considering the evidence of PW5 coupled with documentary evidence the salary of the petitioner is fixed at Rs.17,128/- per month towards gross salary, and net salary is Rs.16,938/- since he underwent four operations and long treatment and he also sustained eight injuries loss of earnings @ 16,938/- per month was awarded for a period of six months 6x Rs.16,938/-= Rs.1,01,628/-. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the learned Tribunal. This Court has clearly stated above, the medical bills of Rs.2,41,433/- is marked as Ex.A7 through PW3, the same amount is awarded by the Tribunal below, therefore, an amount Rs. 2,41,433/-is awarded towards medical bills. No appeal is filed against the said finding by the Tribunal below. 15. The learned Tribunal held that, no positive evidence is adduced by the petitioner along with documentary evidence. PW3 doctor deposed that the disability of injured 50% to 60%, on considering evidence of PW3 on record, since the petitioner underwent four operations and sustained eight grievous injuries, therefore, I find it is desirable to award Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant towards disability and loss of amenities, therefore, in total the claimant is entitled an amount Rs.5,73,061/-. 16. In view of the above reasons the claim granted by the Tribunal for an amount Rs.4,73,061/- is enhanced to Rs. Rs.5,73,061/-the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards enhanced claim. 17. In the result, appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order dated 07.01.2011 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.549 of 2009, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,73,061/-, with interest of 7.5% P.A., on the enhanced claim, from the date of petition till the date of realization. 17. In the result, appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order dated 07.01.2011 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.549 of 2009, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,73,061/-, with interest of 7.5% P.A., on the enhanced claim, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the balance amount within (1) month from the date of the Judgment, on such deposit the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued interest there on. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.