1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1573 of 2006
ORDER:
The injured/claimant in M.V.O.P.No.576 of 2004 on the file of
Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District &
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Narsapur filed the present appeal
aggrieved by the order and decree dated 31.05.2006, in so far as it is
adverse to the appellant/claimant.
2. Heard Mr.T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel representing the
appellant and Mr.U.Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel representing the
3rd respondent-Insurance Company.
3. The appellant/claimant, who is a house wife filed M.V.O.P.No.576 of
2004 seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by
her in a motor accident that occurred on 23.01.2004. In the O.P it was
averred that when the appellant/claimant was proceeding on foot and
reached near the vicinity of Annapurna Theatre Canteen, Palakol, the
driver of a lorry bearing No. AP 31 B 2748 came with high speed in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed the appellant from behind. As a result
of the same, the appellant sustained fracture to her both legs and multiple
injuries all over the body. The appellant was shifted to hospital at
Bheemavaram, where she was treated as in-patient for three months and
undergone two major surgeries for both legs, steel rods were inserted in
the left leg, skin grafting was also done to the injuries and as a result of
the said accident, the appellant suffered permanent disability. 2
4. The appellant in support of her case examined as P.W.1 and
also P.Ws 2 to 4-Doctors who had treated her. She got marked Exs.A.1 to
A.12. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent died.
The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed written statement denying
the manner in which the accident allegedly occurred. It was alleged that
the appellant/claimant herself contributed to the accident by suddenly
attempting to cross the road without observing the crime vehicle. The
averments with regard to surgeries undergone by the appellant/claimant,
the amounts spent by her towards medical treatment/surgeries etc., and
the permanent disability due to the accident etc., were denied by the
3rd respondent-Insurance Company.
5. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the
3rd respondent-Insurance Company.
6. The Claims Tribunal by an order and decree dated 31.05.2006
allowed the M.V.O.P in part by awarding a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards the
injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant as against the total claim of
Rs.3,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal came to be filed.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, inter alia, submits
that the compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is meager,
unjust and unreasonable. He submits that the injuries sustained by the
appellant/claimant are grievous in nature and the evidence on record
would clearly establish that the appellant has undergone two major
surgeries and steel rods were implanted. He further submits that
the Doctors P.Ws 2 to 4 who treated the appellant/claimant gave evidence
with regard to the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant and as per 3
Ex.A.12 the disability is assessed at 40%. Despite ample material on
record, the learned counsel submits that the Claims Tribunal grossly erred
in awarding only Rs.80,000/-. The learned counsel while relying on
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sri Anthony
alias Anthony Swamy Vs. The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C1,
Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and another2, Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Manager Vs. T.Laxman Goud and
others3, Kirti and Another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,4
submits that the appellant/claimant is entitled to just and reasonable
compensation, more particularly, in the light of the injuries sustained by
her, which are grievous in nature and the disabilities suffered, as a result
of the accident.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurance
Company submits that the amount of compensation as awarded is just
and reasonable, and warrants no interference by this Court. He submits
that the disability suffered by the appellant/claimant is not permanent
disability, but only partial disability. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal is
justified in awarding Rs.20,000/- towards the same.
9. This Court has considered the submissions of both the counsel and
perused oral and documentary evidence available on record. The Claims
Tribunal while answering issue No.1 had recorded a categorical finding
that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending lorry by its driver. With reference to issue No.2 regarding the
compensation as claimed by the appellant/claimant, a perusal of the order
1 2020 (3) SCC (CIV) 2 2014 (3) SCC (CIV) 3 (2014) Supreme (AP) 1134 4 2021 (2) SCC166 4
passed by the Claims Tribunal would go to show that categorical findings
were recorded with regard to the injuries sustained by the
appellant/claimant, which are grievous in nature and the treatment taken
by the appellant/claimant in the hospitals at Bhimavaram initially and
Vijaya Orthopedic Care Hospital, Palakol subsequently. Various contentions
advanced on behalf of the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company were
rejected.
10. At Paras 28 and 29 of the order, the Claims Tribunal referred to the
contentions advanced by the claimant and given its cogent reasons while
arriving at the conclusions. The Claims Tribunal also referred to the
various Exhibits supporting the case of the appellant/claimant with regard
to the bills issued by the Hospital and the genuineness of the same.
11. Despite referring to various Exhibits in proof of the injuries
sustained, expenses incurred for treatment and recording findings in
favour of the appellant/claimant, the Claims Tribunal while dealing with
the claim for compensation towards Pain and Suffering at Para 31 of the
order held as follows:-
"Para 31: The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under this Head. However the total amount covered by the bills roughly come to Rs.42,000/-. A major bill of Rs.20,000/- was issued by P.W.4 Dr.N.Muralidhara Rao. Except this major bill and another bill for Rs.9,400/- issued by Bhimavaram Hospitals the other bills are for smaller amounts. P.W.4 however admitted his accounts did not disclose that he issued a bill for Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner. Of course P.W.4 gave treatment to the petitioner. He should have charged petitioner for the expenses incurred for conducting surgery. So taking this aspect into consideration and further treatment required to the petitioner and considering the bills filed by petitioner an amount of Rs.35,000/- is granted under this Head which will meet ends of justice."
5
12. The amount of Rs.35,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, in
the light of ample material available on record, in the considered opinion
of this Court, is not just or reasonable, more particularly, as the injuries
are grievous in nature and it is not in dispute that steel rods were inserted
after conducting two surgeries. As per the evidence of
P.W.2 Dr.V.V.J.Soma Raju, the appellant sustained the following injuries:-
i) 15 cm. long bone deep laceration across lower third of left leg with active bleeding;
ii) Tenderness over lateral aspect of left leg over middle third;
iii) 3 cm. laceration in fourth web force of left foot;
iv) Swelling and tenderness over right foot;
v) Comminuted fracture of distal fifth of left tibia;
vi) Transverse fracture shaft of left tibia;
vii) Fracture base of second, third and fourth metatarsals of right foot;
In his evidence, he has categorically stated that after four months
of the appellant's operation, the fracture was not united and she was
advised for bone-grafting surgery. In the cross examination, he has
categorically denied the suggestion that the injuries sustained by the
appellant/claimant noted in the case sheet were not true and that he has
not conducted the operation.
13. P.W.3 Dr.N.Muralidhara Rao another Doctor in his evidence
categorically stated about the surgery conducted by him on 03.01.2005
and fixation of plate and screws and also bone-grafting to the injuries
sustained by the appellant/claimant. In the light of the oral and
documentary evidence, as contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant/claimant awarding of Rs.25,000/- under the head of Pain and
Suffering is not just and accordingly the same is enhanced to
Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed by the appellant/claimant. 6
14. With regard to disability sustained by the appellant/claimant it may
be relevant to refer to evidence of P.W.4, who worked as Senior Assistant
Surgeon, District Headquarters Hospital, Eluru and was a Member of
District Medical Board. In his evidence, he had categorically stated that
the percentage of disability sustained by the appellant is 40% and the
disability is permanent in nature. He also deposed that the appellant will
have difficulty in attending heavy duties and day-to-day activities. In the
cross examination, he had denied the suggestion that the disability is not
permanent in nature. He had also denied the suggestion that the appellant
will not have difficulty in attending heavy duties and day-to-day activities.
The Claims Tribunal while assessing compensation under the Head
"Permanent Disability" which was claimed at Rs.1,00,000/- arrived at the
conclusions contrary to the evidence on record. At Para 33, the Claims
Tribunal recorded a finding that the disability sustained by the
appellant/claimant is not a permanent disability, but it is a partial
disability. The said finding of the Claims Tribunal is not sustainable and
awarding of amount of Rs.20,000/- on the basis of the said finding, in the
considered opinion of this Court, is not tenable. Though the
appellant/claimant has claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under this
Head, keeping in view the disability as certified by the concerned Medical
Board, the amount of compensation has to be arrived at, which should be
just and reasonable.
15. As the petitioner is a house wife, keeping in view her services to the
family and in the light of expression of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata
Wadhwa & Ors Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.5, it is deemed appropriate
to assess the compensation having regard to the services of the appellant
5 Writ Petition (Civil) 232 of 1991 7
to the family. In said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking into
consideration, the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for
managing the entire family, even on a modest estimation, should be
Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum.
16. In the judgment of Supreme Court in Kirti and Another's case
(referred (04) supra), which is in respect of death of the house wife in a
road accident, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Para 10 observed
as follows:-
Para 10: The sheer amount of time and effort that is dedicated to household work by individuals, who are more likely to be women than men, is not surprising when one considers the plethora of activities a house-maker undertakes. A house-maker often prepares food for the entire family, manages the procurement of groceries and other household shopping needs, cleans and manages the house and it surroundings, undertakes decoration, repairs and maintenance work, looks after the needs of the children and any aged member of the household, manages budgets and so much more. In rural households, they often also assist in the sowing, harvesting and transplanting activities in the field, apart from tending cattle."
17. In Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd., case (referred (3) supra)
the learned Single Judge was dealing with the case of death of a house
wife in a road accident and while disposing of the appeal filed by the
Insurance Company allowed the appeal filed by the claimants in part. In
Sanjay Kumar's case (referred (2) supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
inter alia held that the injured is entitled to compensation over three (03)
months period of medical treatment due to the injuries sustained by him
and future prospects were taken into consideration while arriving at the
compensation.
8
18. Though the appellant/claimant is a house wife, due to the injuries
sustained by her, certainly she would not be in a position to extend her
services to the family and the same needs to be appropriately
compensated. Accordingly, taking the monthly income of the appellant at
Rs.3,000/- and the disability of 40%, the compensation is arrived at by
adopting the multiplier of 18 in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi
Transport Corp.& Anr6, as follows:-
3000 x 12 x 18 x 40/100 = Rs.2,59,200/-.
19. Further, in tune with the expression of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar & Anr7, the
appellant/claimant is entitled for loss of amenities and future
medical expenses. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, it is deemed appropriate to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
under these Heads. The Claims Tribunal in respect of medical bills
observed that the total amount covered by the bills roughly comes
to Rs.42,000/-, but awarded an amount of Rs.35,000/- only
including for further treatment, which in the opinion of this Court is
not tenable. In the light of the material on record it is evident that
the appellant/claimant had undergone two major surgeries.
Therefore, the amount of Rs.42,000/- covered by the bills has to be
awarded. Accordingly, the appellant/claimant is entitled to the
following amounts towards compensation.
Pain and Suffering: Rs.1,00,000/-
Medical Bills: Rs.42,000/- -
Permanent disability: Rs.2,59,200/-
Loss of amenities and future medical expenses: Rs.1,00,000/-
6 2009 (6) SCC 121 7 2011 (1) SCC 343 9
Thus in all, the claimant is entitled for a total amount
Rs.5,01,200/- with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of petition till
the date of payment.
20. Though the appellant/claimant has claimed Rs.3,00,000/- in
the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ramla Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd8 just and reasonable
compensation can be awarded. However, appellant/claimant has to
pay the requisite Court Fees over and above the amount claimed
and awarded. The amount of compensation as enhanced shall be
deposited by the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company, within a
period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is entitled to
withdraw the same.
21. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed, as indicated above.
No costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
Date: -01-2022
IS
8
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11495 OF 2018
10
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1573 of 2006
Date: -01-2022
IS
