Kasapu Krishnaveni vs Yelamanchili Venkata Ramana 2 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8815 AP

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO


                   M.A.C.M.A. No.1285 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

1. Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 05.10.2010 in M.V.O.P.

No.221 of 2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kakinada; the

claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation.

2. For convenience, the parties will be referred to per their rankings

in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claimant filed a claim petition under section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act read with rule 455 of Motor Vehicles Rules

claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries

sustained by her in the accident that occurred on 06.08.2007.

4. The claimant's case is on 06.08.2007, while the auto bearing

registration No. A.P. 05 TT 6202, in which she was proceeding,

reached Veeradu Babu temple of Rowthulapudi village of

Sankavaram Mandal; at about 7.00 PM, a van bearing

registration No. A.P. 31 W 4689 (hereinafter referred to as

offending vehicle), driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and

negligent manner dashed the auto from backside, due to which

she fell from the auto and sustained injuries.

M.A.C.M.A. No.1285 of 2012

5. Respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte.

6. Respondent No.3 filed a counter-denying the contents of the

claim petition and further contended that the claim was

excessive.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues.

During the trial, the claimant herself got examined as P.W.1 and

marked Exs.A.1 and A.2. On behalf of 3rd respondent, no oral

evidence was adduced, but a copy of the policy was marked as

Ex.B.1. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle, i.e., 1st respondent and

awarded compensation at Rs.5,000/- with interest at 7.5% per

annum to the claimant against respondents 1 to 3.

8. Heard the learned counsel for both parties.

9. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant contended that the

Tribunal ought to have considered the grievous nature of injuries

sustained by the claimant while awarding compensation. He

further argues that though Tribunal accepted the claimant's

case, she sustained multiple injuries, erred in granting meagre

compensation and prayed to enhance the compensation.

M.A.C.M.A. No.1285 of 2012

10. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent supported the findings

and observations of the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the

appeal.

11. After reading the documentary evidence on record and the

submissions made on either side, this Court views that there is

no serious dispute regarding the accident that occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent and the

injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The

respondents have not preferred any appeal or cross-objections

questioning the findings and observations of the Tribunal, the

learned counsel for the claimant addressed the argument only

regarding the quantum of the compensation amount. Thus it is

unnecessary to narrate the factual aspects of the case in detail.

The point for consideration is whether the Tribunal awarded a

just and reasonable compensation amount or is to be enhanced?

12. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent insured the offending vehicle and

Ex.B.1-policy was in subsistence on the date of the accident.

According to the evidence of P.W.1, she sustained a fracture to

her forearm and other injuries all over her body; she was shifted

to Government Hospital, Kakinada, for treatment, where she was

inpatient for a month and out-patient for 3 months. In support of

her case, she relied on Ex.A.2-photostat copy of the wound

M.A.C.M.A. No.1285 of 2012

certificate issued by Dr A.V.Ramana, Civil Assistant Surgeon,

Community Health Centre, Prathipadu. A perusal of Ex.A.2-

wound certificate shows that the claimant sustained a cut injury

on the right forearm oblique in line measuring 7 x ½ cm in size.

It also observed in the wound certificate that the fracture bony

end, as seen from the wound gap, the wound is covered with a

bandage cloth. Ex.A.2 also refers radiologist's opinion x-ray with

M.L.C. No.333771 with x-ray No.18909 dt.10.08.2007 of the right

forearm, which shows a fracture of the bony end of the right

forearm. The claimant relied on Ex.A.2-wound certificate showing

the nature of the injury sustained by her with reference to the

radiologist report and x-rays; the Tribunal has not inclined to

consider the said document observing that the claimant has not

chosen to examine the doctor who issued the wound certificate.

The Tribunal observed that the claimant proved that she

sustained only a simple injury. It further observed that the

claimant had not filed any medical bills showing that she spent

Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses. The wound certificate

issued by the doctor got marked as an exhibit with the party's

consent. The contesting respondent has not disputed the

genuineness of the certificate. The claimant has not taken steps

to examine the doctor.

M.A.C.M.A. No.1285 of 2012

13. In the case of Managing Director, North East Karnataka Road

Transport Corporation Vs. T.Prabhakar and others1 the

Karnataka High Court held that

"....the wound certificate issued by the doctor has been marked as exhibits with parties' consent. The petitioner had not made any sincere effort to rebut the evidence placed by the claimants before the Tribunal in which the petitioner entered the witness box and gave evidence to rebut the documentary evidence available on record."

14. In the facts of the case, the Karnataka High Court held that the

non-examination of the doctor is not fatal to the case of the

claimant; it is permissible, under law, to produce the wound

certificates by the claimants issued by the Medical Officer. Non-

examination of the Medical Officer will not vitiate the claim for

compensation by the claimants based on the wound certificate.

15. In the case of New India Assurance Company Limited,

Visakhapatnam v. Korukonda Appa Rao and another2 this

High Court held that,

" In all the cases, the compensation was awarded only to the simple and grievous injuries, but not in respect of any permanent disability. The proceedings under section 166 of

2003 ACJ 1420

2010 (6) ALD 566

M.A.C.M.A. No.1285 of 2012

the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature; the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation intended to provide just and reasonable compensation to the victims of motor vehicle accidents to the extent possible. The provisions have to be construed in favour of the claimants."

It is further observed that:

"There is no absolute preposition of law to the effect that in the absence of the evidence of doctor, the Tribunal cannot award any compensation, particularly, when the injury certificates were brought on record."

16. Here in the present facts of the case, the Tribunal has not

inclined to consider the wound certificate on the ground of non-

examination of the medical officer. Given the settled legal

position, the contesting respondent does not object to marking

the wound certificate; the Tribunal is not justified in holding that

the wound certificate is unproven. This Court views the Tribunal

as unjustified, holding that the claimant sustained only simple

injury. Based on the unchallenged testimony of PW.1 coupled

with Ex.A.2-wound certificate, this Court views that the claimant

established that she sustained a grievous injury in the accident.

This Court opinions that the claimant is entitled to compensation

of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering for the injuries. P.W.1

M.A.C.M.A. No.1285 of 2012

has not filed medical bills to show that she spent an amount of

Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses; this Court views that some

amount towards medical expenses be awarded as she sustained

grievous injuries in the accident.

17. In the case of Pathi Lakshmi v. K.Sinder Raj and others3 This

Court held that even simple injuries take a minimum of two to

three weeks for complete healing. It is common knowledge that

the petitioners receiving treatment in the Government Hospital

also incur expenditure on medicines purchased from outside.

18. After considering the evidence of P.W.1, this Court finds that an

amount of Rs.3,000/- can be awarded towards the claimant's

medical expenses. This Court also views that some reasonable

amount towards transportation and attendant charges can be

awarded as the claimant suffered from injuries for a considerable

time. Thus, this Court considers that Rs.2,000/- can be granted

under those heads. The claimant is entitled to a compensation

amount of Rs.20,000/-.

19. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the

compensation amount to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand

only) from Rs.5,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum as

awarded by the Tribunal. The respondents are directed to deposit

2015 (6) A.L.T.

M.A.C.M.A. No.1285 of 2012

the compensation amount, excluding the amount already

deposited, if any, within two months of receiving a copy of this

order. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire

compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

20. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand closed.

--------------------------------------- T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J

Dt.17.11.2022 BV