Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Naidu Bhaskara Rao vs Jakeer Hussain Sheik on 7 February, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No. 4138 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the order dated 13.04.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.139
of 2004 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court,
East Godavari at Rajahmundry, (for short "the tribunal"), the
claimant preferred the present appeal.
2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P for
convenience.
3. The claimant's case is that on 31.07.2003, the claimant, along
with K. Lakshmi Narasimha Appa Rao (the claimant in M.V.O.P.
No.140 of 2004), was proceeding on the scooter bearing No.AP 5
A 5253, as a rider and the pillion rider, met with an accident
near the spinning mill, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry, due to the
rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 31 T 5941.
Due to the accident, he sustained grievous injuries and thereby
sustained permanent disability. As such, the claimant sought
MACMA_4138_2012
compensation, an amount of Rs.80,000/- against the
respondents.
4. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte.
5. Respondent No.3 has filed its counter denying the claimant's
age, avocation and income and the nature of the injuries
sustained by him and further contended that the first
respondent did not possess a valid driving license and the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent.
6. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues. To
substantiate his claim, during the trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 were
examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.42. On behalf of the
respondents, no oral evidence was adduced; however, marked
Ex.B.1 and Exs.X.1 to X.4.
7. After evaluating the evidence on record, the tribunal found that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the offending vehicle's driver and granted compensation of
Rs.19,500/-.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties.
MACMA_4138_2012
9. The claimant's counsel has contended that the tribunal should
have considered Exs.A.23 to 37 medical bills which establish
that the claimant incurred an amount of Rs. 7,847/- as well as
Ex. A.38, medical certificate-cum-bill which establishes that the
claimant spent Rs. 2,200/- towards treatment. In addition, the
tribunal should have considered Ex.A.22, wound certificate,
which shows that the claimant sustained grievous injury.
10. Learned counsel for the third respondent supported the findings
and observations of the tribunal.
11. The findings of the tribunal that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver is
not disputed by the respondents. The injuries sustained by the
claimant in the accident is also not disputed. It is also evident
from Ex.A.1-copy of F.I.R. and Ex.A.3-certified copy of charge
sheet. The said findings of the Tribunal are not disputed by the
respondents. Hence, the said findings have attained finality. The
only point that arises for consideration is, whether the
compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable or
requires enhancement.
MACMA_4138_2012
POINT:
a. To prove the nature of the injuries, the claimant himself got
examined as P.W.2 and also examined P.W.3,
Dr.R.Parthasarathy, to prove the treatment undergone and also
filed Ex.A.22, wound certificate issued by Civil Assistant
Surgeon, District Hospital, Rajahmundry, which shows the
claimant sustained :(1) diffuse swelling (L) side chest c/o. pain,
tenderness present and (2) c/o.pain-no terseness. It further
shows that the claimant was admitted in the hospital on
31.07.2003 and discharged on 05.08.2003. Based on the x-
rays, the doctor opined that injury No.1 is grievous in nature
and injury No.2 is simple in nature.
b. The claimant also examined P.W.4, Dr.T.Venkateswara rao.
P.W.4 testified that the claimant was admitted in the hospital on
31.07.2003 and discharged on 05.08.2003. He further testified
that the claimant sustained a fracture of left 4th rib and also
sustained one grievous and one simple injury. The evidence of
P.W.3 is also supported by Ex.A.41, wound certificate and
Exs.X.3 and X.4, Case sheet and x-ray.
MACMA_4138_2012
c. The claimant relied on Exs.A.23 to A.37, medical bills (15 Nos.)
which shows that the claimant spent an amount of Rs.7,847.90
ps. and Ex.A.38, medical certificate, shows that it is issued by
Dr.M.Gopinath Bardolai of Varalakshmi Nursing home for an
amount of Rs.2,200/-. A reading of the order passed by the
tribunal shows that without assigning any specific reasons, the
tribunal has not granted the amount incurred towards medical
bills. There is nothing on record to suggest the genuineness of
the said medical bills in question. It is not the case of the
respondents that the medical prescriptions and medical bills
covered under Exs.A.22 to 42 are not relating to the injuries
sustained by the claimant. When the tribunal has not chosen to
award any amount towards medical bills, it is expected to have
given reasons for not awarding the said amount. Considering the
fact that there is no evidence before the court to show that the
said medical bills are not relating to injuries sustained by P.W.2,
this court views that the tribunal ought to have awarded the
amount covered under those medical bills. In view of the same,
MACMA_4138_2012
this court is inclined to award an amount of Rs.10,000/-
towards medical expenses.
d. The evidence of P.W.4 shows that generally fracture causes pain
for 6 to 8 weeks. Considering the nature of the fracture injury
sustained by the claimant, this court views that the claimant
could not attend normal duties at least for 3 months. In view of
the same, the tribunal ought to have awarded an amount of
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings.
e. The tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,500/- towards pain,
suffering and mental agony due to the injuries sustained in the
accident. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by
the claimant and the treatment undergone, this court is inclined
to award Rs.4,500/-, in addition to the amount awarded by the
tribunal, towards pain and suffering and mental agony due to
the injuries sustained.
f. The tribunal awarded meager amounts of Rs.1,000/- towards
transport charges and Rs.1,000/- towards extra nourishment
and Rs.1,000/- for attendant charges. Considering the nature of
injuries sustained and the treatment undergone by the claimant,
MACMA_4138_2012
this court is inclined to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- under
those heads.
g. In all, the claimant is entitled to the compensation as detailed
hereunder:
Medical expenses : Rs.10,000/-
loss of earnings : Rs.10,000/-
pain and suffering : Rs.20,000/-
transportation, extra-
nourishment and
attendant charges: : Rs.10,000/-
----------------------
Total: Rs.50,000/-
--------------------
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part without costs by
enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.19,500/- to
an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with
interest at [email protected] per annum as awarded by the tribunal against
the respondents 1 to 3. Respondents are directed to deposit the
compensation, excluding the amount deposited, if any, within
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On
such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire
compensation amount.
MACMA_4138_2012
13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall
stand closed.
___________________________
T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J
Dt.07.02.2023
BV
