Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Unknown vs Hon'Ble Shri Justice T. ... on 15 December, 2022
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.958 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
1. Assailing the order dated 28.11.2012 in M.V.O.P. No.294 of 2009
passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-
VIII Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada,
the appellant, who was the claimant in the M.V.O.P., has
preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as
they were arrayed in the M.V.O.P.
3. The claimant filed a claim petition under Sections 163-A and
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of
Rs.1,50,000/- on account of his injuries in a motor vehicle
accident that occurred on 09.09.2007.
4. The claimant's case is that on 09.09.2007 at about 11 a.m., he
was going to Tadigadapa village to attend the duties, crossing
M.G. Road opposite Chaitanya College, Tadigadapa; at that time,
one motorcycle bearing No. A.P. 16 AL 3091, coming from
Vijayawada towards Kankipadu, being ridden by the first
respondent at high speed, without blowing a horn, and without
following traffic rules, hit the claimant. Immediately, the first
MACMA_958_2013
respondent took the claimant in an auto-rickshaw and joined the
claimant at Vatsalya Hospital, Katuru Road, Vuyyuru, for
treatment. The Penamaluru police recorded the claimant's
statement and registered the same as a case in Crime No.
378/07 under Section 338 IPC against the first respondent. The
claimant received crush injuries on his left foot and ankle. The
claimant was treated as an inpatient for two months in the
hospital. The doctor diagnosed that the claimant sustained a left
foot and ankle injury. The claimant received treatment as an
outpatient for 3 months in the said hospital and underwent
surgeries on 10.09.2007, 15.09.2007 and 10.10.2007, during
which four steel rods were inserted. The claimant incurred an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for treatment and expenditure.
5. The first respondent remained ex parte.
6. The second respondent filed its written statement contending
that the claimant is put to strict proof regarding the injured's
age, income, and occupation. The claimant has to prove that he
works as a lorry cleaner and earns Rs. 3,000/- per month.
7. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed appropriate issues.
To substantiate the claim, during the trial, on behalf of the
claimant, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to
A.7 and Ex.X.1. On behalf of the second respondent, no oral
MACMA_958_2013
evidence was adduced, however, a copy of the policy was marked
as Ex.B.1.
8. After appreciating the evidence on record, the tribunal held that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the first respondent on 09.09.2007 in which P.W.1 sustained
grievous injuries, and awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,700/-
with interest at 7.5% P.A. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant
has preferred this appeal.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ claimant
contended that the tribunal did not consider Ex.A.7-medical
certificate issued in respect of an orthopedically handicapped
candidate.
11. The learned counsel for the second respondent supported the
findings and observations of the tribunal.
12. Upon hearing the argument of both the learned counsel and on
perusal of the material on record, the point for consideration is
whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and
reasonable or whether it requires enhancement.
13. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, he got treatment as an
outpatient for three months. To prove the nature of the
treatment, the claimant got examined as P.W.1 and Dr K.
MACMA_958_2013
Lakshmi Srinivas as P.W.2. P.W.2 testified that on 09.09.2007,
he examined the claimant, who was admitted to the hospital for
treatment of the injuries sustained by him. He issued Ex.A.2-
wound certificate. As per Ex.A.2-wound certificate, P.W.1
sustained degloved crush injury of the left foot ankle. The injury
is grievous in nature. On 10.10.2007, after convincing the patient
and his attendants, the fifty metatarsal bone and the phalanx of
the fifth toe were removed. Debridement was thoroughly done,
and the wound was washed thoroughly. On 15.10.2007, the
Debridement was again done, debris was removed, and the
dislocated joints of the left foot were fixed with three K wires. On
10.10.2007, skin grafting was done on the left foot. To show the
claimant sustained injuries as deposed by him, Ex.X.1-four x-
rays were marked. It is the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the fifth
finger of the left foot was amputated.
14. P.W.2 identified Ex.A.6-medical bills. Though P.Ws. 1 and 2 were
cross-examined with regard to the injuries sustained by the
claimant and the nature of the treatment, nothing was elicited to
discredit their evidence. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, he
claimed compensation of Rs.7,000/- for loss of earnings. The
tribunal, in its order, observed that no documentary evidence had
been filed to prove the loss of earnings. Based on the evidence of
MACMA_958_2013
P.W.2, it can see that the fifty metatarsal bones and the phalanx
of the fifth toe were removed. Debridement was thoroughly done,
and the wound was thoroughly washed. The said evidence is not
disputed, and in the case facts, it can be estimated that the loss
of earnings would be Rs.9,000/-, as claimed by the claimants.
15. It is the claimant's case, he spent an amount of Rs.90,000/-
toward medical expenses. The claimant submitted Ex.A. 6
medical bills to prove the medical expenses.A.7- medical
certificate. Admittedly, the claimant has placed medical bills for
Rs.83,900/-, and the claimant also proved the said medical bills.
The tribunal has awarded Rs.83,900/- towards compensation for
medical bills. The tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.8,800/-
towards Pain and suffering. Upon considering the nature of the
injury sustained by the claimant and treatment, this court views
that an amount of Rs.20,000/- can be awarded towards Pain and
suffering for the injuries. Though the claimant claims that he
sustained a permanent disability, the tribunal has not accepted
the claimant's said case as the concerned medical officer has not
proved it. This court views that an amount of Rs.5,000/- can be
awarded towards transportation charges and attendant charges,
an amount of Rs.5,000/- toward extra nourishment and a
MACMA_958_2013
number of Rs. 10,000/- toward nervous shock. In all, the
claimants are entitled to the compensation as detailed hereunder:
Towards loss of earnings Rs. 9,000/-
Towards medical bills Rs.83,900/-
Towards Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/-
Towards transportation Rs. 5,000/-
Towards extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/-
Towards nervous shock Rs.10,000/-
----------------------------
Total: Rs.1,32,900/-
----------------------------
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the
compensation from Rs.1,00,700/- to Rs.1,32,900/- (Rupees one
lakh, thirty-two thousand and nine hundred only) together with
interest at 7.5% P.A. as awarded by the tribunal. The second
respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation
amount, excluding the amount, if any deposited, within two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such a
deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the enhanced
compensation amount on filing an appropriate application before
the tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
17. Consequently, in this appeal, miscellaneous petitions pending, if
any, shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.
Dt.15.12.2022
BV
