HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.1798 of 2016
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 13.11.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.1310 of 2012 on the file of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for the injuries sustained by the appellant, who has filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- together with interest and costs.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P.
3. On 12.03.2012 at about 3.00 p.m., while the claimant was proceeding to petrol bunk on his scooter bearing No.AP-36-H-2815 and when he reached Ramireddy Thota, Ibrahimpatnam, suddenly, a TATA Indica car bearing No.AP-29-BJ-7516, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the scooter of the claimant, due to which, the claimant sustained fracture to the left leg femur, a head injury and other fractures. It is the further case of the claimant that he incurred medical expenses and lost income 2 GAC, J MACMA.No.1798 of 2016 due to the injuries sustained by him and became permanently disabled after the accident.
4. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and earning capacity of the claimant and also the medical expenses incurred by him.
5. The Tribunal, on examining the oral and documentary evidence on record, partly allowed the O.P., awarding a total compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- along with costs and interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimant has filed this appeal.
6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Claimant contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence on record and probabilities of the case and the Tribunal ought to have considered 25% of disability as per Ex.A-13. It is further 3 GAC, J MACMA.No.1798 of 2016 contended that the Tribunal have erred in awarding less compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life, transportation charges, pain and suffering, extra nourishment, future medical expenses and other conventional charges.
8. A perusal of the evidence of PW-2 i.e. the Doctor (Orthopedic surgeon) who treated the claimant, show that the claimant was treated as in-patient from 14.03.2012 to 21.03.2012. He further deposed that the claimant sustained fracture of left femur, for which, he gave conservation treatment in Foral of POP, injection and physiotherapy and that the claimant also underwent follow-up physiotherapy in his hospital.
9. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, has granted compensation to the claimant under the following heads:
1. Grievous injury, pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
2. Simple injury Rs.9,000/- 3. Medical Expenses Rs.51,000/-
4. Attendant, transportation and extra- Rs.5,000/-
nourishment charges
5. Disability Rs.25,000/-
TOTAL Rs.1,20,000/-
4
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1798 of 2016
10. It is the specific contention of the claimant that as a laborer, he used to earn a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. Ex.A-13 is the disability certificate issued by PW-2, which clearly disclose that the claimant sustained 25% of partial permanent disability and he had difficulty in sitting, squatting, walking, stiffness of left knee joint and difficulty in doing labour work. But the Tribunal did not consider the disability certificate issued by PW-2. Admittedly, it is for the District Medical Board to issue disability certificates and PW-2 being a private Doctor, cannot issue the disability certificate. For the reasons best known to the claimant, he has not produced any disability certificate from the District Medical Board. The Tribunal has observed that the disability certificate of the District Medical Board was not placed as evidence and in the absence of such certificate, the Tribunal assessed the disability of the claimant as 10% instead of 25%.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Syed Saleem and others v. Abdul Shukur & another1, wherein, their Lordships 1 2007 (1) ALT 648 5 GAC, J MACMA.No.1798 of 2016 have held that there is no requirement to prove disability by examining the Doctor who treated the victim and to obtain such certificate from the very same Doctor. Though the facts and circumstances of the present case differ from the above judgment, the ratio has to be followed. In the present case, PW-2 is the Doctor who treated the claimant and issued Ex.A-13/certificate. The cross-examination of PW-2 clearly disclose that he has not treated the claimant immediately after the accident and the claimant came to his hospital on 14.03.2012 i.e. two days after the accident. His evidence further disclose that Medical Board was constituted by the Government to issue disability certificates and he has not mentioned the guidelines in the disability certificate issued by him i.e. Ex.A-13.
12. The District Medical Boards are constituted to issue disability certificates by assessing the percentage of permanent or partial disabilities sustained by the injured. The District Medical Board contains a team of three Doctors in order to assess the disability. Admittedly, Ex.A-13 was issued by PW-2, who was one of the members of the District Medical Board. There is no oral or 6 GAC, J MACMA.No.1798 of 2016 documentary evidence before the Tribunal to grant compensation towards future medical expenses or for the loss of expectation of life or loss of income.
13. In the aforesaid judgment in Syed Saleem's case, while referring to the judgment in Charan Singh v. G. Vittal Reddy2, the learned Single Judge held as under;
"14. .....I am fortified in my view by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Charan Singh's case. The relevant portion of Para 9 of the judgment reads thus:
"....As it is, Workmen's Compensation Act is a beneficial legislation enacted for protecting the interests of Workmen who are the victims of accidents during the course of their employment and, therefore, clear-cut method has been stipulated in the Act itself. In case of scheduled injuries, even in the absence of any medical evidence, the compensation will automatically follow as per the schedule to the said Act. But, the difficulty conies only in the case of non-
scheduled injury in respect of which, assessment has to be made by the qualified medical practitioner as contemplated under the Act. From this, it cannot be concluded that the qualified medical practitioner should be only the medical practitioner who has treated the workmen concerned. If that is to be accepted, it leads to several anomalies. The doctor who treated the workmen may not be available for various reasons and the workmen cannot be expected to stay at a particular station forever. Further, the 2 2003 (1) An.W.R. 741 (DB) 7 GAC, J MACMA.No.1798 of 2016 permanent disability cannot be assessed immediately on the next day of the sustaining the injuries. In order to assess the permanent disability, naturally, wounds have to be healed so as to make assessment of the permanent disability in relation to loss of earning capacity. The learned Single Judge has recorded finding in his order that the doctor who treated the workmen ought to have been examined and the certificate issued by the doctor after lapse of time ought not to have been relied on. But under the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, there is no such requirement to prove the disability by examining the very same doctor who treated the workmen and to obtain such certificate from the very same doctor."
15. Though the above case arise under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the ratio laid down by the Division Bench can be made applicable to the instant case which arise under the Motor Vehicles Act, since under the Motor Vehicles Act and he rules made thereunder, there is no requirement to prove the disability by examining the very same doctor who treated the victim and to obtain such certificate from the very same doctor. The ratio can also be adopted since both the Act are beneficial legislations.""
Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation.
14. There is no specific evidence on record as to the income of the claimant. Under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance 8 GAC, J MACMA.No.1798 of 2016 Insurance Co. Ltd3., took the income of the claimant as Rs.4,500/- per month. Considering the same, the income of the claimant herein can be taken as Rs.4,500/- per month and the annual income would come to Rs.54,000/-. If the disability of 25% is taken into consideration, it would come to Rs.13,500/-. The age of the injured is 31 years, for which, the multiplier applicable is '16' as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation4. Therefore, an amount of Rs.2,16,000/- (Rs.13,500 X 16) can be awarded towards loss of income.
15. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the compensation under different heads as under:
1. Grievous injury pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
2. Simple injury Rs.9,000/-
3. Medical Expenses Rs.51,000/-
4. Attendant, transportation and extra- Rs.5,000/-
nourishment charges
5. Disability including loss of income Rs.2,16,000/-TOTAL Rs.3,11,000/-
Thus, the claimant/appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.3,11,000/- towards compensation, payable by respondent Nos.1 3 (2011) 13 SCC 236 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121 9 GAC, J MACMA.No.1798 of 2016 and 2 jointly and severally within two months from the date of receipt of this order and the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount as the accident occurred in the year 2012.
16. Appeal is accordingly allowed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 13.07.2022 ajr