Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Andhra Pradesh State Road, ... vs Jettipetti Ramanjaneyulu on 17 October, 2022
BVLNC MACMA 177 of 2016
Page 1 of 14 Dt: 17.10.2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
M.A.C.M.A.No.177 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/APSRTC,
challenging the award dated 08.10.2015 passed in
M.V.O.P.No.593/2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-
cum-IV Addl.District Judge, Kadapa, wherein the Tribunal while partly
allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.2,81,400/- with
interest @ 7.5% P.A. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation
to the respondent/claimant for the injuries sustained by the claimant.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in
the lower Court.
3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioner filed an
application U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act")
claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the injuries and
disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident
occurred on 26.02.2013 while the petitioner as a Beldari, went to
Lakkireddipalli Village to attend Beldari work at Radhakrishna Temple
and at about 08.00 a.m. when he was collecting stones at Radha
Krishna Temple in Lakkireddipalli Village, on left side of road margin
BVLNC MACMA 177 of 2016
Page 2 of 14 Dt: 17.10.2022
on Rayachoti-Vempalli road, meanwhile APSRTC bearing No.AP28Z
5623 driven by its driver from Rayachoty, in a rash and negligent
manner, with high speed, without blowing horn, dashed the claimant,
as a result, he fell down and sustained injuries.
4. The facts show that on 26.02.2013 while the petitioner as a
Beldari, went to Lakkireddipalli Village to attend Beldari work at
Radhakrishna Temple and at about 08.00 a.m. when he was collecting
stones at Radha Krishna Temple in Lakkireddipalli Village, on left side
of road margin on Rayachoti-Vempalli road, meanwhile APSRTC Bus
bearing No.AP28Z 5623 driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent
manner, with high speed, without blowing horn, dashed the claimant,
as a result, he fell down and sustained injuries i.e., laceration on left
forearm, contusion over occipital region and tenderness over chest
region. The petitioner was shifted to Primary Health Centre,
Lakkireddipalli Village for treatment. After taking treatment at
Primary Health Centre, Lakkireddipalli Village, the petitioner was
shifted to Himalaya Hospital, Kadapa, where operation was conducted
on 28.02.2013 and petitioner took treatment till 09.03.2013. The
petitioner suffered unbearable pain and suffering and he is not in a
position to do any work. The petitioner spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards
treatment and medicines, Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges,
BVLNC MACMA 177 of 2016
Page 3 of 14 Dt: 17.10.2022
Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.15,000/- towards
extra nourishment.
5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent/APSRTC, filed written
statement 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 crime
bus, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, alleged permanent
disability and liability to pay compensation and contended that the
petitioner sustained only simple injuries and that there is no
permanent disability to him and he is attending his normal duties as
earlier. The claim is high and excessive.
6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal
framed the following issues:
1. Whether the claimant received injuries in a motor vehicle
accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 5623 on 26.02.2013 at
08.00 a.m.?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?
BVLNC MACMA 177 of 2016
Page 4 of 14 Dt: 17.10.2022
7. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined P.Ws-1 and 2
and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the respondent/APSRTC,
no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1
and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-4, held that the accident took place
due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus driver, and
further, taking into consideration of the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2
corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-4, awarded a compensation of
Rs.2,81,400/- with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from the date of petition, till
the date of realisation.
9. The plea of the respondent/APSRTC is that the petitioner
sustained only simple injuries, and that there is no permanent
disability to him and he is attending his normal duties as earlier.
10. 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 respondent's APSRTC bus driver.
11. The contention of the Appellant/APSRTC is that the Tribunal
erred in held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the APSRTC Bus driver, and that the Tribunal failed to see
that the claimant suffered only three simple injuries and the Tribunal
BVLNC MACMA 177 of 2016
Page 5 of 14 Dt: 17.10.2022
erred in awarding Rs.18,000/- towards loss of earnings during the
period of treatment, though claimant suffered only simple injuries, and
there is no permanent disability and P.W-2 evidence does not disclose
that he issued disability certificate in support of his evidence that the
claimant suffered disability as 20%, and therefore, Tribunal erred in
awarding Rs.1,58,400/- towards loss of earnings, on account of
permanent disability, and as such, compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant.
12. The learned counsel for the Appellant/APSRTC vehemently
argued that, no doctor or medical authority issued disability certificate
in favour of the claimant indicating that the claimant suffered either
permanent or temporary disability, on account of the injuries
sustained by the claimant in the accident, and the doctor, who was
examined as P.W-2, orally deposed that the injured suffered
permanent disability as 25% without any basis, and in the cross-
examination, he categorically admitted that the claimant is able to do
normal work and therefore, no value can be attached to the evidence of
P.W-2 to assess the permanent disability of the claimant.
13. The learned counsel for respondent/claimant submitted that
P.W-2 deposed that the claimant suffered permanent disability, and he
assessed the same as 20% and in the re-examination of the claimant,
BVLNC MACMA 177 of 2016
Page 6 of 14 Dt: 17.10.2022
doctor deposed that the claimant cannot do work as the claimant was
doing prior to the date of accident, and therefore, awarding
compensation for loss of future earnings is proper and correct, and
there are no reasons to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal.
14. In the light of rival contentions, it is pertinent to refer the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of G.Ravindranath
Vs. E.Srinivas and another1, wherein it was held that "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 can be awarded ."
15. In the case on hand, the Tribunal upon considering the evidence
of the respondent/claimant about the manner, in which the accident
was occurred, it was corroborated by Ex.A-1 copy of FIR, Ex.A-3 copy
of police report (charge sheet) held that the accident was occurred, due
to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus.
(2013) 12 S.C.C.455
BVLNC MACMA 177 of 2016
Page 7 of 14 Dt: 17.10.2022
16. Admittedly, the Appellant/APSRTC did not adduce any evidence
to contradict to the version deposed by P.W-1. The driver of the bus
was not examined by the Appellant/APSRTC. In that view of the
matter, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the findings of the
Tribunal that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of APSRTC, and that the claimant suffered injuries
in the said accident.
17. The Tribunal considered Ex.A-2 wound certificate, and found
that the claimant suffered three injuries, one laceration on left fore
arm, contusion over occipital region and tenderness over chest region.
As per the wound certificate, the above three injuries are simple in
nature. Ex.A-4 discharge summary shows that the claimant was
admitted in Himalaya Hospital, Kadapa on 02.03.2013 and discharged
on 09.03.2013. Further, Ex.A-4 shows that patient underwent
operation on 28.02.2013 and Dr.Ch.Obul Reddy was the Surgeon.
Ex.A-2 wound certificate was issued by RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, dated
06.04.2013, which shows that the patient was discharged on
26.02.2013 from RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, and he was admitted at
Himalaya Hospital, Kadapa and he was got operated on 28.02.2013 at
early hours with the procedure spleenectomy along with peritonea
wash and he was discharged from Himalaya Hospital on 09.03.2013
BVLNC MACMA 177 of 2016
Page 8 of 14 Dt: 17.10.2022
and the Civil Asst. Surgeon of Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital, Kadapa,
opined that based on Himalaya Hospital report, the above injury is
grievous in nature.
18. The above facts and circumstances basing on Ex.A-2 wound
certificate, Ex.A-4 discharge summary shows that initially, the
claimant was admitted in RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, and on his request,
on 26.02.2013 he was discharged to admit him in Himalaya Hospital,
Kadapa, and an operation was conducted on 28.02.2013 at early
hours as stated above, and the Civil Asst. Surgeon of RIMS, Kadapa,
issued Ex.A-2 wound certificate, opined that basing on the report of
Himalaya Hospital, the injury is grievous in nature.
19. The claimant to prove the above facts and circumstances,
examined himself as P.W-1 and to corroborate his evidence, has
examined Dr.T.Ayyavar Reddy of Himalaya Hospital, Kadapa, as
P.W-2. The claimant (P.W-1) in his evidence deposed that after the
accident, he was referred to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, and later after
discharging from RIMS Hospital, he was admitted in Himalaya
Hospital, Kadapa on 26.02.2013 for better treatment, and operation
was conducted on 28.02.2013 with the procedure spleenectomy along
with peritonea wash, and he took treatment till 09.03.2013, and it was
found that the injury on occipital region was grievous in nature, and
BVLNC MACMA 177 of 2016
Page 9 of 14 Dt: 17.10.2022
he was discharged from the hospital, and he continued to be bed
ridden, and he has been taking treatment in Himalaya Hospital as out-
patient, and he suffered unbearable pain due to injury on occipital
region, he is suffering from giddiness and he is not in a position to do
any normal duties, and unable to attend mason work due to pain in
the occipital region, and therefore, he lost his only source of income
and he claimed compensation for loss of future earnings apart from
other heads.
20. P.W-2 deposed that he is working as Casualty Medical Officer in
Himalaya Hospital, Kadapa and he treated P.W-1 from 02.03.2013 to
09.03.2013, and a surgery was conducted on P.W-1 as in-patient, as
he came to the hospital with severe abdomen pain and vomiting, and
X-ray was taken and diagnosed that a blunt injury was caused over
abdomen with rupture of spleen and therefore, surgery of laparotomy
was done, and the hospital issued Ex.A-4 discharge summary and
permanent disability suffered by the claimant is 25%. It is an
admitted fact that except the oral evidence of P.W-2, no certificate was
issued by either Himalaya Hospital or RIMS Hospital, Kadapa or
Medical Board, Kadapa, assessing the disability suffered by the
claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
The doctor in his evidence, in the cross-examination of APSRTC
BVLNC MACMA 177 of 2016
Page 10 of 14 Dt: 17.10.2022
admitted that the claimant can do his normal work without any
difficulty, and in the re-examination of the claimant, he again deposed
that the claimant cannot do mason work, as he was doing previously.
In that view of the matter, it is very clear that the doctor without any
certificate issued either by Himalaya Hospital or by Medical Board,
orally deposed and assessed the disability as 25%, basing on the
grievous injury sustained by the claimant.
21. The Tribunal in its order awarded a sum of Rs.18,000/- towards
loss of earnings during the period of treatment, treating monthly
income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/-per month. The Tribunal also
awarded Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.5,000/- towards
transport charges, as he moved from his village to Kadapa for
treatment and also awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering
for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident, and also
awarded Rs.20,000/- each for the three injuries suffered by the
claimant and also awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment
and medicines, but as claimant took treatment under Arogya Sri
Scheme, held that he is not entitled for the said amount. The Tribunal
considered the permanent disability suffered by the claimant as 20%
on the ground that the claimant suffered spleen injury, though it is not
supported by certificate that he sustained 25% permanent disability
BVLNC MACMA 177 of 2016
Page 11 of 14 Dt: 17.10.2022
and applied multiplier 11, treated his income as Rs.6,000/- per month
as per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others
Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2, and held that the
petitioner is entitled a sum of Rs.1,58,400/- towards permanent
disability at 20%.
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.Ravindranath Vs.
E.Srinivas and another held that " in serious cases of injury, where
there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the
claimant, that compensation can be granted under the heads of (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".
23. In the case on hand, the wound certificate was corroborated by
the evidence of P.W-2, and it shows that the respondent/claimant has
suffered three simple injuries, and also his evidence shows that he
suffered grievous injury due to rupture of spleen, and he underwent
surgery in Himalaya Hospital on 28.02.2013, but unfortunately, no
permanent partial disability or temporary disability certificate was
issued by any medical board in favour of the claimant. No reasons are
2009 ACJ 1298
BVLNC MACMA 177 of 2016
Page 12 of 14 Dt: 17.10.2022
forth coming for non-issuing of the disability certificate either from the
evidence of P.W-1 or P.W-2. The Tribunal based on the oral evidence
of P.W2 made guess work, and opined that the permanent disability
suffered by the claimant as 20% and awarded compensation for loss of
future earnings, it is disputed by the Appellant/APSRTC in the present
appeal.
24. The evidence of P.W-2 coupled with Ex.A-2 wound certificate
shows that the respondent/claimant suffered injury on the abdomen
and as a result, spleen was ruptured, and an operation was conducted
in Himalaya Hospital, Kadapa, on 28.02.2013 and the Medical Officer
of RIMS Hospital in Ex.A-2 wound certificate opined that it is a
grievous injury. The evidence of P.W-2 shows that the said injury may
cause permanent disability, and he assessed the same as 25%. P.W-1
evidence discloses that on account of the injury sustained by him, he
is unable to do normal work as attended by him earlier to the accident.
P.W-2 also deposed that the claimant cannot do mason work as
attended by him, prior to the accident. The Appellant/APSRTC did not
adduce any contra evidence showing that the claimant has been
attending mason work subsequently, after discharging from the
hospital and he is leading normal life.
BVLNC MACMA 177 of 2016
Page 13 of 14 Dt: 17.10.2022
25. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on
hand, I do not find any irregularity or illegality or error committed by
the Tribunal in awarding compensation towards loss of future earnings
to the claimant, basing on his income, by applying multiplier, as laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs.Delhi
Transport Corporation and another case.
26. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on
hand, and in view of the above discussion, I do not find any grounds to
interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal, and, therefore, the
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
27. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the award
08.10.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.593/2014 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl.District Judge, Kadapa. 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
17.10.2022
psk
BVLNC MACMA 177 of 2016
Page 14 of 14 Dt: 17.10.2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
M.A.C.M.A.No.177 OF 2016
17th October, 2022
psk
