Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1245 (AP)

Bandaru Venkaiah v. N. Anjaneyulu

2025-12-11

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2025
JUDGMENT : B. S. Bhanumathi, J. This appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and the decree, dated 27.04.2005, in O.P.No.243 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ongole. 2. This appeal was preferred by the claimant. The respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the appellant / claimant, briefly stated, is as follows: While the claimant, along with other villagers, was proceeding in a jeep bearing No.AP 04 C 6898 of the respondent No.1 insured with the respondent No.2 on the intervening night of 5/6.05.2000, near Gotlagattu village on Podili-Nandyal road, the driver of the jeep drove it in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over it. As a result, the jeep dashed against a stationed tractor-truck and the claimant and others received injuries and one person died. The police of Konakanamitla Police Station registered a case in Crime No.15 of 2000 against the driver of the jeep and filed charge sheet. The claimant sustained multiple injuries, including the fracture to his both hands. He was shifted to the Government Hospital, Ongole, and later treated in Venkata Ramana Nursing Home, Ongole and also in N.I.M.S., Hyderabad. He was treated from 06.05.2000 to 10.06.2000 in N.I.M.S. Steel rods were inserted in his both hands by surgery. He took follow up treatment. He could not lift weights and became permanently disabled. He claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 5. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the claim and further stating that the owner of the insured vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy issued by it in respect of the vehicle by using it as a taxi. 6. On behalf of the claimant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and exhibits A1 to A18 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined, however, Ex.B1, attested copy of the policy relating to the United India Insurance Company Limited, dated 22.07.1999, was marked by consent. 6. On behalf of the claimant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and exhibits A1 to A18 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined, however, Ex.B1, attested copy of the policy relating to the United India Insurance Company Limited, dated 22.07.1999, was marked by consent. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR in Crime No.15 of 2000 of Konakanamitla police station, dated 06.05.2000; exhibit A2 is the certified copy of the M.V. Inspector’s report, dated 06.05.2000; exhibit A3 is the certified copy of the charge sheet, dated 12.12.2000, in C.C.No.405 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili; Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the Medico Legal Record, dated 06.05.2000, issued by N.I.M.S., Ex.A5 is the bunch of medical bills (69) in number; Ex.A6 is the cash receipts, dated 06.05.2000, issued by N.I.M.S., nine in number’ Ex.A7 is the O.P.Chit, dated 06.05.2000, of N.I.M.S.; Ex.A8 is the Medical Equipment bill, dated 29.05.2000; Ex.A9 is the receipt, dated 06.05.2000, of Registration charges issued by N.I.M.S.; Ex.A10 is the Transport receipt, dated 27.07.2000, two in number; Ex.A11 is the Hire charges receipt, dated 06.05.2000; Ex.A12 is the Ultra sound Scan report, dated 07.05.2000; Ex.A13 is the outpatient medical records issued by N.I.M.S., dated 24.07.2000 (two in number); Ex.A14 is the discharge record of the petitioner issued by N.I.M.S., dated 06.05.2000; Ex.A15 is the scanning reports (two) in number; Ex.A16 is the scan X rays (four in number), dated 06.05.2000; Ex.A17 is the X rays (10 in number), dated 06.05.2000; Ex.A18 is the pattadar passbook relating to Bandaru Venkaiah issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, dated 17.06.2001. 7. After considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal held that the claimant suffered 20% disability as he suffered temporarily 100% disability but could improve his health gradually as deposed by the doctor. The Tribunal further held that the claimant being owner of Ac.17.00 cents of dry land, might have lost future earnings to a tune of Rs.54,000/- (being calculated on notionally estimated income per day at Rs.50/- and multiplying the same by 15 and limiting to 20% of it). That apart, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.19,516/- and Rs.46,240/- towards medical expenses; Rs.16,000/- towards transportation; Rs.3,000/- towards attendant charges; Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment; and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities of life. That apart, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.19,516/- and Rs.46,240/- towards medical expenses; Rs.16,000/- towards transportation; Rs.3,000/- towards attendant charges; Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment; and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities of life. Thus, in all, a sum of Rs.1,51,760/- (rounded off) was awarded with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 8. Aggrieved by the award and the decree, this appeal was preferred by the claimant. 9. Challenging the quantum of compensation as meager stating that the notional income arrived is low and medical expenses granted are meager and the percentage of disability taken is low. 10. Notice to the respondent No.1 in this appeal was dispensed with as he remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted as in the appeal grounds. He further submitted that no amount of compensation was granted for future medical expenses to get the implants removed. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 13. In case of a claim for injury allegedly resulting in permanent disability, the principles to be followed to evaluate the quantum of compensation, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, 2010 INSC 703 , wherein the Supreme Court summarized the following principles at paragraph No.13: “13. We may now summarize the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the Neutral Citation: 2010 INSC 703 extent of permanent disability. (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the Neutral Citation: 2010 INSC 703 extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.” 14. Keeping the above principles in view, if the award passed by the Tribunal is examined, it is noticed that the Tribunal has granted adequate amount of compensation. The claimant might have suffered partial permanent disability due to the implants inserted, but, it is not proved that such disability has resulted in loss of earning capacity or actual loss of future earnings. Since the avocation of the claimant is agriculture, there is no credible evidence that he was personally doing agricultural operations or that the nature of disability crippled him from attending such work. Every owner of an agricultural land need not personally cultivate, since it can be done by engaging services of labourer or by giving the property on lease for cultivation. However, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal, i.e., Rs.50,000/- towards disability is sufficient to meet the loss due to loss of amenities of life, discomfort or any other such consequences. Awarding a lump sum amount in the present case is proper and the multiplier method cannot be adopted to arrive at the quantum of compensation for the above reasons. As the Tribunal has adequately granted the amount of compensation under different heads, no additional amount of compensation can be granted. Further, there is no evidence that the claimant requires any further surgery. As such, there is no merit in the appeal. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.