THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1386 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the injured claimant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.05.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.857 of 2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. The claim petitioner was a minor boy aged about 05 years represented by his mother and natural guardian. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, 'the M.V. Act') claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is preferred seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- as claimed by him.
2. As per the claim petition, the mother of the claimant along with the claimant went to her relative's place at G.Yadavalli Village of Nalgonda District. On 31.05.2007 at about 8:45 A.M., while the claimant was crossing the road after attending nature call, an auto bearing No.AP24W6824 coming from Chandur Village side in a rash and negligent manner hit the minor 2 Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1386 of 2011.
claimant and turned turtle on the road. The shirt of the minor claimant hooked to the bumper of the auto due to which the minor claimant sustained head injury as well as fracture of ribs. The police Kanagal registered a case in Cr.No.62 of 2007 under Section 337 of I.P.C. against the driver of the auto. It was stated in the claim petition that the minor claimant went into unconscious state and was shifted to Government Hospital, Nalgonda where he was treated as inpatient for two days. Subsequently, he was shifted to Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad on 02.06.2007 and was kept in I.C.U. for 4 days. He was discharged on 07.06.2007. During the course of treatment he was evaluated and found to have hemopneumothorax for which surgical intervention of right side was done. Blood clots were removed and blood transfusion was done. 14 sutures were applied to his head injury. The minor was suffering from pains, head ache and sleeplessness problem. About Rs.75,000/- was spent towards his treatment, surgery, diagnosis, etc.. As such, compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- was claimed from respondents 1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the auto bearing No.AP24W6824.
3. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. The respondent No.2- insurance company filed counter contending that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the claimant in crossing the road without 3 Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1386 of 2011.
observing the traffic. He slipped and fell down, sustained injuries and was not entitled to any compensation, and claimed for strict proof of age, health condition and medical expenses incurred by the claimant. The respondent No.2 also contended that the driver of the auto was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident.
4. Before the Tribunal, the mother of the claimant was examined as PW.1. The doctor who treated the claimant at Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital was examined as PW.2. Exs.A1 to A10 were marked on behalf of the claimant. The respondent No.2-insurance company got examined it's employee as RW.1 and got examined the Administrative Officer of R.T.A. Office, Nalgonda as RW.2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B5 on its behalf.
5. The main contention taken by the insurance company was that the driver of the auto rickshaw was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive an auto rickshaw which was a transport vehicle. This contention was not accepted by the Tribunal. But no appeal was filed by the insurance company on the said aspect. This appeal is filed by the injured claimant seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.1,50,000/- as claimed by him.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-insurance company. 4
Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1386 of 2011.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimant was that there was a minor variation in the evidence of doctor with that of the medical certificate issued by the hospital which was marked as Ex.A4, due to which the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW.2. The parents of the injured claimant had spent more than Rs.75,000/- towards his treatment and filed medical bills under Ex.A9, but the said medical bills were disbelieved by the Tribunal without assigning any valid reason. The Tribunal failed to grant compensation for extra-nourishment and failed to consider that the minor boy had lost one academic year due to the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident and prayed to enhance the compensation.
8. On a perusal of the evidence of PW.1, the mother of the claimant stated that the claimant sustained:
a) Grievous injury over left ear to right eye.
b) Grievous injury over occipital region, surgical emphysema
seen in soft tissue of neck and Polytrauma, 14 sutures applied.
c) Grievous injury over right fore arm.
d) Fracture of 9th and 12th ribs of right side
e) Grievous injury over left temporal region.
f) Multiple injuries all over the body.
g) Grievous injuries on both patella.
5
Dr.GRR,J
MACMA No.1386 of 2011.
She further stated that the injured claimant was admitted as inpatient in Government Head Quarter Hospital, Nalgonda for two days and subsequently, he was shifted to Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad on 02.06.2007. As his condition was very serious, he was kept in I.C.U. for four days and was discharged on 07.06.2007. They spent more than Rs.75,000/- towards his treatment, surgery, diagnosis, medicines and extra-nourishment. Inspite of giving better treatment, claimant was not recovered from the said injuries and fractures. He was suffering from pains, head ache, sleeplessness, partial giddiness and other problems. He was unable to concentrate his mind on his studies, and he was completely in bed- ridden condition for a long period. He lost one academic year. He was aged about 6 years at the time of the accident and filed Exs.A1 to A10 in support of her contention. Nothing was elicited in her cross-examination to disbelieve her evidence.
9. She also got examined the doctor at Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad who treated the injured as PW.2. PW.2 stated that the claimant by name Sai Sandeep aged 5 years was admitted on 02.06.2007 with history of R.T.A. with head injury and chest injury. He was treated at Government Hospital before referring to their hospital. On his examination, he found that the injured sustained the following injuries: 6
Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1386 of 2011.
a) Sutured wound over scalp,
b) Abrasions over left shoulder back,
c) Abrasion over left side of face,
d) Fracture of 9th and 12th ribs on right side and
haemothorax right side.
Intercostal drainage was done under local anesthesia. 50 C.C. blood drained out. He was discharged on 07.06.2007. The patient was examined by Pediatrician and chest specialist and stated that the above injuries were grievous in nature.
10. The Tribunal observed that the evidence of PW.2 varied with regard to the injuries sustained by the injured in the injury certificate. PW.2 stated about sutured wound over scalp but the same was mentioned as abrasion over left scalp and there was no mention of polytrauma head injury in the evidence of PW.1, which was mentioned in Ex.A4 and so also there was no mention of fracture of 9th and 12th ribs of right side in Ex.A4 medical certificate, which was found in the evidence of PW.2. The Tribunal held that there was discrepancy in the evidence of PW.2 to that of Ex.A4 medical certificate issued by the hospital of PW.2, as such, held that the evidence of PW.2 could not be believed and relied.
7
Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1386 of 2011.
11. But on a perusal of record, it was seen that in Ex.A2, certified copy of the injury certificate issued by the District Head Quarters Hospital, Nalgonda the following five injuries were noted:
a. Abrasion over left ear b. Abrasion over right fore arm c. Laceration over occipital region d. Abrasion over temporal left region e. Abrasion over frontal region.
12. The injury certificate issued by the Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Malakpet was marked as Ex.A3. In Ex.A3, it was recorded that the claimant by name Sai Sandeep, aged 5 years was admitted in their hospital on 02.06.2007 with head injury, right side haemo pneumothorax and was discharged on 07.06.2007. The injuries were marked as polytrauma - head injury, abrasion over left face and left scalp and right side haemo pneumothorax. The nature of injuries were certified to be grievous. The discharge summary was marked as Ex.A6. It disclosed that there was a sutured wound over scalp, abrasions over left shoulder back, abrasions over left side of face. It was also noted that under all aseptic precautions ICD (intercostal drainage) was done. 50ml blood was drained out from right pleural cavity through 5th ICS through anterior axillary line. On examination, he was found to have surgical haemopneumothorax on right side. 8
Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1386 of 2011.
13. This Court does not find any contradictions in the injuries noted in Ex.A2, A3 and A6 with the evidence of PWs.1 or 2. The claimant was initially evaluated at District Head quarters hospital and on preliminary examination, the hospital authorities noted the injuries as abrasions and lacerations and noted them as simple in nature but on a detailed evaluation, the Yashoda hospital authorities had noted down that there was polytrauma - head injury, right side haemo pneumothorax, which were grievous in nature. The Tribunal ought not to have disbelieved the evidence of a qualified doctor who was also the Head of the department and consultant General Surgeon in a reputed private hospital, who on his evaluation stated about the injuries sustained by the claimant. The same were also supported by the X-Rays, diagnostic reports, etc. The diagnostic reports also would disclose the fractures on 9th and 12th ribs. As the X-Rays and the original diagnostic reports were also filed, the Tribunal ought not to have disbelieved the same.
14. When the claimant had filed medical bills for an amount of Rs.41,906/-, the Tribunal awarding an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses is considered as improper. The claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.41,906/-, the actual amount incurred by the parents of the claimant towards the medical bills at Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Malakpet.
9
Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1386 of 2011.
15. Considering the evidence of PW.2 and the grievous injuries sustained by the claimant on his head and chest wherein it was stated that the claimant sustained 14 sutures over his head and haemo pneumothorax and blood clot at the chest region was drained out under general anesthesia and as the minor claimant was admitted in I.C.U. for four days in the hospital, it is considered fit to award an amount of Rs.50,000/- as against the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering.
16. The claimant is also entitled to an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards extra-nourishment and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges as he was transported from G. Yadavalli to Nalgonda and from there to Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet towards 'to and fro' charges and for his follow up treatment. It is also considered reasonable to award an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges as his parents might have attended to him by leaving their routine jobs.
17. As there was no evidence to show that the injured claimant had sustained any permanent disability or that he sustained loss of any academic year and as he was a young boy of five years of age, no amounts were awarded under these heads.
18. Hence, the injured claimant is entitled to compensation under various heads as follows:
10
Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1386 of 2011.
1. Pain and Suffering - Rs. 50,000/-
2. Medical expenses - Rs. 41,906/-
3. Extra-nourishment - Rs. 5,000/-
4. Transport charges - Rs. 5,000/-
5. Attendant charges - Rs. 5,000/-
-----------------
Total - Rs.1,06,906/-
-----------------
19. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1,06,906/-
(Rupees One Lakh Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Six Only) with interest at 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount. The respondent No.2 - insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount deposited if any. On such deposit, the appellant- claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J September 06, 2023 ss 11 Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1386 of 2011.
THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI M.A.C.M.A. No.1386 of 2011 September 06, 2023 ss