Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 134 (AP)

K. Srinivasulu v. E. Guravaiah

2025-01-23

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2025
JUDGMENT: In this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claimant impugned the award dated 18.03.2011 of learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.449 of 2009. 2. Heard arguments of Sri J.Ugra Narasimha, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri Srinu Babu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri N.Nageswara Rao, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. None entered appearance for respondent No.1 who is owner of the offending vehicle. 3. The following facts are required to be noticed: The appellant as claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Respondent No.1 therein was the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 therein was the insurer. The appellant has been a Supervisor in a Fast-Food Centre, Tirupati and earning Rs.4,500/- per month. On 25.11.2007 he was one of the passengers in an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-03-V-4361 owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2. At about 8:30 A.M. on that day while the auto rickshaw was going on the road it was driven at high speed and rashly or negligently by its driver and when a cow was crossing the road he was unable to control the vehicle and as a result the passengers in the vehicle fell down which include the appellant. He sustained various injuries all over his body and was treated at SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati. Seeking compensation, he filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. The owner of the vehicle did not choose to contest. The insurance company raised its contest. The learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident on 25.11.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of three wheeler Auto Rickshaw bearing No.AP 03 V 4361 by its driver as pleaded by the petitioner? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 4. During trial, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 and Ex.X.1 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the contesting insurance company. 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 4. During trial, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 and Ex.X.1 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the contesting insurance company. The insurance company made a statement before the Claims Tribunal that by the date of accident the offending vehicle was covered by a valid and effective insurance policy. 5. After considering the evidence on record and after considering the submissions made on both sides, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the claimant/appellant herein sustained injuries on 25.11.2007 because of rash or negligent driving of the auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP-03-V-4361. Under various heads it assessed the claim for compensation and granted Rs.90,000/- as compensation under the following heads: Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000-00 Medical expenses Rs. 30,000-00 Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000-00 Attendant charges Rs. 5,000-00 Disability Rs. 25,000-00 Total: Rs. 90,000-00 6. The operative portion of the order reads as below: “In the result, petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs awarding compensation amount of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) to the petitioner with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit recoverable by the petitioner from the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Rest of the claim of the petitioner is disallowed without costs. Time for deposit is two months. On such deposit, petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire compensation amount with accrued interest and costs. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only).” 7. The injured claimant is grieved at the quantum of compensation and therefore preferred this appeal. 8. The principal submissions argued before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant are with reference to the failure of the Claims Tribunal in not granting actual medical expenses and in not appropriately considering the permanent disability suffered by the claimant. It is on these two grounds that the appellant seeks interference. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company submits that all the facts were properly analyzed, and the impugned order does not suffer from any error in facts or law and therefore prays for dismissal of the appeal. 10. It is on these two grounds that the appellant seeks interference. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company submits that all the facts were properly analyzed, and the impugned order does not suffer from any error in facts or law and therefore prays for dismissal of the appeal. 10. The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the impugned order fails to grant just compensation to the injured claimant?” POINT: 11. The learned Chairman, Claims Tribunal, after detailing the facts gathered from the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence recorded its findings stating that the appellant suffered fracture of left tibia which was grievous and suffered five simple injuries. It recorded that the claimant/appellant had undergone three surgeries for the injuries he sustained. These facts and findings are not in dispute in this appeal. 12. Claimant/appellant tendered medical bills as per Ex.A.9 to a tune of Rs.1,08,385/- and urged that towards actual medical expenses the said amount need be granted. At paragraph No.17 of the impugned award the learned Claims Tribunal stated that some of the medical bills are not supported by actual prescriptions. It then stated that the claimant/appellant was treated in Government Hospital where the treatment was free and he may have spent some money for medicines and surgeries but may not have spent Rs.1,08,385/- and in its opinion the claim for the said amount was an exaggeration. Taking that view it granted Rs.30,000/- towards actual medical expenses. 13. Having considered the record and the submissions made on both sides, it is clear and remains undisputed that Ex.A.9 discloses that this appellant/claimant expended Rs.1,08,385/- towards various medicines and other articles meant for his surgeries and treatment. The opinion of the Claims Tribunal that it was an exaggerated sum, in the view of this Court, is an unreasonable surmise and it does not seem that it elicited any relevant information either from PW.1 or from the doctor/PW.2 in that regard. Merely because an injured person was treated at Government Hospital does not automatically allow someone to reach a conclusion that one would not have spent any money for his treatment. It is quite possible and on many occasions it was also found to be true that relevant medicines may or may not have been available at the Government Hospital thereby the patient was required to expend his own money. It is quite possible and on many occasions it was also found to be true that relevant medicines may or may not have been available at the Government Hospital thereby the patient was required to expend his own money. It could not be said that an injured person who underwent three surgeries was required to procure any false bills for his own medicines. Ex.A.9- medical bills standing in the name of the claimant/appellant were found not challenged by production of any contrary evidence on behalf of the contesting respondent before the Claims Tribunal. In such circumstances the Claims Tribunal grossly erred in not granting what was proved by Ex.A.9 and concluding a fact based on its own guess work which had no basis on facts. It has to be recorded here that the Claims Tribunal had not mentioned as to which of the bills was not supported by prescription and it also did not mention as to how it arrived at Rs.30,000/- as actual medical expenses. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the appellant made out his entitlement for actual medical expenses at Rs.1,08,385/-. Since the Tribunal had awarded only Rs.30,000/- this Court shall grant the remaining balance of Rs.78,385/- rounded off to Rs.79,000/- towards actual medical expenses. 14. Accepting the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the medical record, the learned Claims Tribunal found that shortening of left leg for the claimant/appellant and the disability, as deposed by PW.2, was permanent and it was assessed as 20% permanent disability. While the Claims Tribunal is right in holding that the said disability by itself did not result in any incapacity to work as a supervisor in a Restaurant or a Hotel, it held that there was no working disability. It stated that Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards this disability was sufficient. In this appeal the learned counsel for appellant urged the Court that the claimant was aged 32 years when the accident occurred and rest of his life he had to live with shortening of leg and towards loss of natural endowments resulting in loss of amenities, the claim made by the appellant for Rs.50,000/- may be granted. 15. In this appeal the learned counsel for appellant urged the Court that the claimant was aged 32 years when the accident occurred and rest of his life he had to live with shortening of leg and towards loss of natural endowments resulting in loss of amenities, the claim made by the appellant for Rs.50,000/- may be granted. 15. Having considered this submission, this Court is of the view that the appellant has to lead his long life with such permanent disability of shortening of leg which would cause a great deal of disappointment and inconvenience which he had to endure without any fault in him. This Court is of the view that what was granted by the Claims Tribunal requires modification. An additional amount of Rs.15,000/- is thus granted towards loss of amenities because of the acquired permanent disability 16. Thus, an additional amount of Rs.94,000/- (Rs.79,000/- towards actual medical expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities) is granted. To this extent, the impugned award of the Claims Tribunal requires modification. Accordingly, the point is answered. 17. In the result, this Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 18.03.2011 of learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati in M.V.O.P.No.449 of 2009 from Rs.90,000/- to Rs.1,84,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The second respondent- Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount after giving due credit to amounts, if any, deposited already within one month before the Claims Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.