Eluru Appala Satya Rao vs P.Manoj Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 7746 AP

BVLNC,J                                                  MACMA 503 of 2016
Page 1 of 15                                             Dt: 12.10.2022




               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

                           M.A.C.M.A.No.503 OF 2016

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the petitioner/claimant challenging

the award dated 31.10.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.832/2008 on the

file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge,

Visakhapatnam, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the

petition, awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 7.5%

p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, for the injuries

sustained by the petitioner in a motor accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in

the lower Court.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an

application U/s.166 r/w.455 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity

"the Act") claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the

injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident

occurred on 17.07.2008 at about 01.00 p.m. while the injured was

going to his house on his scooter bearing No.AP 32D 499, by the

offending car bearing No.AP 9 BA 6345, driven by the 1st BVLNC,J MACMA 503 of 2016 Page 2 of 15 Dt: 12.10.2022

respondent/driver, which met with an accident at Industrial Estate,

Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

4. The facts show that 17.07.2008 the petitioner was going on his

scooter to his house and when he reached near Indo Marine Company,

one car bearing No.AP 9 BA 6345 came in a rash and negligent

manner with high speed and dashed the scooter of the petitioner from

its behind, while he was going on left side of the road, as a result, the

petitioner fell on the road and sustained head injury and another

injury on his ear. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Seven

Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam and he undergone treatment in the said

hospital and also undergone surgery for the head injury. The

Kancharapalem police registered a case in Cr.No.131/2008 for the

offence punishable U/s.338 of Indian Penal Code against the driver of

the said car. The petitioner was working as Commission Agent in

SRMT Parcel Service and as Real Estate Broker and earning

Rs.8,500/- per month and he is unable to earn as usual.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/driver filed counter

denying the material averments of the petition, contended that the

accident occurred only due to the negligent driving of the petitioner

and as such, this respondent need not pay any compensation to the

petitioner. It is further contended that the said car was insured with BVLNC,J MACMA 503 of 2016 Page 3 of 15 Dt: 12.10.2022

National Insurance Company Limited and the said insurance policy is

in force.

6. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter resisting

while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age,

avocation, monthly earnings of the petitioner, manner of accident, rash

and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, nature

of injuries, alleged permanent disability, medical expenditure, and

liability to pay compensation to the petitioner and contended that the

petitioner has to prove that there is a valid permit for the vehicle and

the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The rate of

interest claimed is too high.

7. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal

framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to a rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruthi Alto Car bearing No.AP 9 BA 6345 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

 BVLNC,J                                              MACMA 503 of 2016
Page 4 of 15                                         Dt: 12.10.2022

8. To substantiate their claim, the petitioner got examined P.Ws-1

and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-11. On behalf of the respondents,

no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

9. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1

and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-11, held that the accident took place

due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver of the

Maruthi Alto Car bearing No.AP 9 BA 6345, and further, taking into

consideration of the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2 corroborated by Exs.A-1

to A-11, awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from

the date of petition, till the date of deposit.

10. The plea of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is that the

petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. It was pleaded that

the petitioner has to prove that there is a valid permit for the vehicle.

11. The Tribunal considered the evidence on record, and based on

the contentions of both parties, held that the accident occurred due to

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

I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings or reasons

recorded by the Tribunal on that issue.

 BVLNC,J                                               MACMA 503 of 2016
Page 5 of 15                                          Dt: 12.10.2022

12. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2

coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-11, awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/-

towards compensation to the petitioner.

13. This is an appeal filed by the claimant against the judgment and

decree dated 31.10.2011 passed in MVOP 832/2008 on the file of

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge,

Visakhapatnam. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- with

interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit of

awarded amount with proportionate costs.

14. The Appellant filed the claim petition, claiming a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him

in the motor accident on 17.07.2008 at about 01.00 p.m. near

Industrial Estate, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. The Appellant

claimed Rs.500/- towards transport charges to the hospital,

Rs.35,000/- towards extra nourishment and medicines and Rs.5,500/-

towards damages for his scooter under the heads of special damages.

The Appellant under the head of general damages claimed a sum of

Rs.18,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.41,000/- towards

permanent disability and in total claimed Rs.1,00,000/- towards

special and general damages with interest @ 18% p.a. BVLNC,J MACMA 503 of 2016 Page 6 of 15 Dt: 12.10.2022

15. As stated above, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/-

with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of

deposit.

16. The contention of the Appellant is that the Tribunal failed to see

that the petitioner sustained head injury and underwent operation in

Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam. The Tribunal further failed to

see that Ex.A-10 medical bills show that the Appellant has paid an

amount of Rs.29,693/- towards medical expenditure. The Tribunal

also fails to consider Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-6 discharge summaries, which

discloses that the petitioner sustained head injury and underwent

operation. The Tribunal ought to have seen that due to the above

accident, the Appellant is unable to earn as usual, and therefore, the

Tribunal order awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- only as against

the facts and law and is liable to be set aside by awarding

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed by the Appellant.

17. The Tribunal in its order considered the evidence of the

Appellant, who was examined as P.W-1 and also another witness was

examined as P.W-2 and Exs.A-1 to A-11 documents filed for the

Appellant in support of his claim. Admittedly, no oral or documentary

evidence was adduced for the 1st respondent/driver of the crime

vehicle. No oral evidence was also adduced for the 2nd BVLNC,J MACMA 503 of 2016 Page 7 of 15 Dt: 12.10.2022

respondent/Insurance Company, but filed Ex.B-1 copy of insurance

policy, which was marked by consent on behalf of the 2nd

respondent/Insurance Company.

18. The Tribunal on issue No.1, upon considering the evidence of

P.W-1, Ex.A-1 FIR, Ex.A-3 charge sheet and Ex.A-4 M.V.I.Report held

that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the crime vehicle and accordingly, answered the said

issue in favour of the Appellant.

19. The Tribunal considered the evidence of P.W-1 regarding the

injuries sustained by him and Ex.A-2 wound certificate, Ex.A-5 and

Ex.A-6 discharge summaries produced by the Appellant. The Tribunal

held that the petitioner is entitled to compensation, as the Appellant

sustained injuries in the accident which was occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, and that the owner

of the car is vicariously liable to pay compensation for the fault and

negligence act of the driver committed during the course of his

employment and Ex.B-1 insurance policy shows that the car was

insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company. So, the insurer

is liable to indemnify the owner and as such, both the respondents are

jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

 BVLNC,J                                                    MACMA 503 of 2016
Page 8 of 15                                               Dt: 12.10.2022

20. When coming to the claim of compensation, the Appellant

claimed Rs.500/- towards transport expenses to the hospital,

Rs.35,000/- towards compensation for extra nourishment and

medicines and Rs.5,500/- towards damages of his scooter. The

Appellant relied upon Ex.A-10 medical bills regarding the expenses

incurred by him for the treatment in the hospital. The Tribunal

considered Ex.A-10 medical bills and held that the Appellant did not

prove the said medical bills as per the mode prescribed in the law and

held that mere production of the medical bills is not sufficient and the

party, who is relying on the said medical bills has to prove the said

bills, by examining its author or the person, who issued the same and

Tribunal in support of its judgment, relied upon the judgment of High

Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of United India Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Mohammad Khaj Rasool Sayyed @

Mohammad Khaja Main Shaik and another1.

21. Admittedly, the Appellant did not examine any person to prove

Ex.A-10 medical bills to show that he paid the said amount to the

hospital towards expenditure incurred for his treatment, for the

injuries sustained in the accident.

    2003 (5) A.L.D. 162
 BVLNC,J                                           MACMA 503 of 2016
Page 9 of 15                                      Dt: 12.10.2022

22. The Tribunal also disallowed the claim of the Appellant towards

transport charges and damages to his scooter on the ground that there

is no legal evidence to prove the said claims. Admittedly, the Appellant

did not produce any transport bills or any document to prove the

charges incurred by him towards repairs to the said scooter.

23. When coming to the claim of the Appellant under the head

"general damages", he claimed Rs.18,000/- towards pain and suffering

and Rs.41,000/ towards compensation for permanent disability. The

Appellant relied on Ex.A-2 wound certificate, Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-6

discharge summaries issued by Seven Hills Hospital Visakhapatnam.

To claim compensation for pain and suffering is concerned, Ex.A-2

wound certificate discloses that the Appellant sustained a bleeding

injury and he was referred to C.T.Scan and the doctor opined that the

injuries are simple injuries. Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-6 discharge summaries

show that the Appellant sustained head injury and conservative

treatment was given and he responded well for the treatment and his

condition was stable. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, Ex.A-2,

Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-6 does not discloses anything that the Appellant has

undergone any operation. Therefore, as per Ex.A-2 wound certificate,

the Appellant has sustained two simple injuries on the head, near ear.

The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for BVLNC,J MACMA 503 of 2016 Page 10 of 15 Dt: 12.10.2022

the said injuries against the claim of Rs.18,000/- towards

compensation for pain and suffering.

24. The Appellant did not produce any evidence in support of his

claim for compensation for permanent disability is concerned. As

rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, he did not examine the doctor, who

treated him to prove that the Appellant has sustained any physical

disability on account of the injury sustained by him on the head.

Therefore, the Tribunal rightly disallowed the claim of the Appellant

towards permanent disability.

25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.Ravindranath

Vs.E.Srinivas and another2 at para 12 held as follows:

"It is settled law that compensation in personal injury cases should be determined under the following heads:

Pecuniary damages (Special damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;

(2013) 12 S.C.C.455 BVLNC,J MACMA 503 of 2016 Page 11 of 15 Dt: 12.10.2022

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life."

26. In the case on hand, the Appellant did not examine any person

to prove Ex.A-10 medical bills to award pecuniary damages (special

damages) for expenses relating to the treatment, hospitalisation,

medicines, transportation, nourishment, food and miscellaneous

expenditure. Ex.A-2 wound certificate, Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-6 discharge

summaries issued by Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam shows that

the Appellant has taken treatment in the said hospital for the two

injuries sustained by him in the accident. The Appellant claimed a BVLNC,J MACMA 503 of 2016 Page 12 of 15 Dt: 12.10.2022

sum of Rs.35,000/- towards medical expenses under Ex.A-10 medical

bills, but he did not examine any person from the hospital, proving

Ex.A-10 medical bills, and therefore, the Tribunal as stated above,

relying upon the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the

case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mohammad Khaj

Rasool Sayyed @ Mohammad Khaja Main Shaik and another, refused

to accept Ex.A-10 bills as a proof for medical expenses incurred by the

Appellant/petitioner.

27. However, it is an admitted fact that the Appellant has taken

treatment in Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam as disclosed by

Ex.A-2, Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-6 discharge summaries issued by Seven Hills

Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Therefore, the Appellant definitely would

spent some amount for the treatment rendered by Seven Hills

Hospital, Visakhapatnam. In that view of the matter, I am of the

considered opinion that a reasonable amount can be awarded towards

medical expenses, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the

petitioner as mentioned in Ex.A-2. The petitioner sustained two

simple injuries and C.T.Scan was also taken as bleeding injury was

found on his head, which reflected SAH on right side temporal region.

In those circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that a sum of

Rs.10,000/- can be awarded to the petitioner towards expenses BVLNC,J MACMA 503 of 2016 Page 13 of 15 Dt: 12.10.2022

relating to the treatment, hosiptalisation, medicines, transportation,

nourishment, food and miscellaneous expenses.

28. When coming to the claim of the Appellant towards non-

pecuniary damages (general damages), he claimed Rs.18,000/-

towards pain and suffering and Rs.41,000/- towards permanent

disability. As stated above, the Tribunal rightly disallowed the claim of

the Appellant towards permanent disability, and awarded Rs.10,000/-

for the two simple injuries sustained by the Appellant for pain and

suffering. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground to

interfere with the finding of the Tribunal regarding general damages.

29. In the light of above discussion, awarding a sum of Rs.10,000/-

towards medical expenses, in addition to Rs.10,000/- awarded

towards compensation for pain and suffering by the Tribunal, would be

just and proper, by modifying the judgment of the Tribunal.

30. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, by modifying the

judgment of the Tribunal, by awarding a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards

medical expenses, in addition to Rs.10,000/- awarded towards pain

and suffering. Therefore, the compensation awarded is total

Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the

date of deposit. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to BVLNC,J MACMA 503 of 2016 Page 14 of 15 Dt: 12.10.2022

the deposit the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- with accrued

interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment. On

such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire

compensation amount with accrued interest thereon. There shall be

no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

_____________________________ B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

12.10.2022

psk
 BVLNC,J                                        MACMA 503 of 2016
Page 15 of 15                                   Dt: 12.10.2022




            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI




                    M.A.C.M.A.No.503 OF 2016




                        12th October, 2022


psk