B Chinnapu Reddy, Ysr Kadapa Dist vs Nagella Subba Narasimhulu, Ysr ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1396 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.2621 of 2015


JUDGEMENT:

The appellant is the Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.238 of 2013 on

the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District

Judge, Kadapa and the respondents are the respondents in the said

case.

2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are

arrayed in claim application.

3. The claimant filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award

an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- towards compensation to the injuries

sustained by the petitioner in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on

27.12.2012 at about 4.30 p.m.

4. The case of the claimant is that on 27.12.2012 at about 4.30

p.m. while the petitioner proceeding to Kadapa from his native

village Atlur, on his motor cycle and when reached near bypass road

situated on Kadapa-Rajampet main road, the driver of mini lorry

bearing No.AP 04 Y 9189 drove the same in a rash and negligent VGKRJ MACMA 2621 of 2015 Page 2 of 11 Dt:14.03.2023

manner with high speed and dashed against the motor cycle of the

claimant, resulting which, the claimant sustained multiple grievous

injuries and the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/-

towards compensation.

5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second

respondent filed counter denying the claim application and

contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and

the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the

injuries sustained by the petitioner.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

i. Whether the accident took place on 27.12.2012 at 4.30 p.m. near burial ground bypass road on Kadapa-Rajampet main road due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of mini lorry bearing No.AP 04 Y 9189 resulting injuries to the claimant by name B.Chinnapu Reddy?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what extent and from which of the respondents?

iii. To what relief?

 VGKRJ                                             MACMA 2621 of 2015
Page 3 of 11                                       Dt:14.03.2023

7. On behalf of the petitioner, PW1 to PW5 were examined and

Ex.A1 to Ex.A22 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X4 were marked. No oral or

documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of second

respondent.

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has

given a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal granted an

amount of Rs.2,45,000/- to the claimant towards compensation.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal

by claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount.

10. Now, the points for consideration are:

  I.    Whether     the   Order    of   Tribunal       needs        any
        interference?
 II.    Whether the claim petitioner in MVOP No.238 of 2013

is entitled the relief of enhancement of claim as prayed for?

11. POINTS 1 and 2 :-

The case of the petitioner is that on 27.12.2012, the claimant

left the village and was proceeding to Kadapa on his employment VGKRJ MACMA 2621 of 2015 Page 4 of 11 Dt:14.03.2023

work and when reached near bypass road situated on Kadapa-

Rajampet main road at about 4.30 p.m. at that time, mini lorry

bearing No.AP 04Y 9189 came from behind being driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed

against the motor cycle of the claimant, as a result, he fell down

from the motor cycle and sustained multiple grievous injuries and

police registered a case against the driver of the crime vehicle mini

lorry.

12. The petitioner further pleaded that after the accident, he was

shifted to RIMS hospital in 108 ambulance and later he was shifted

to Sri Venkateswara Orthopaedic and Trauma Care and Maternity

hospital, Kadapa city and on 27.12.2012 he underwent an operation

to his right hand and he also sustained injury to right kidney in the

same accident.

13. The second respondent/ Insurance Company pleaded that the

claimant is not entitled the compensation and accident did not took

place due to rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry driven by its

driver.

 VGKRJ                                            MACMA 2621 of 2015
Page 5 of 11                                      Dt:14.03.2023

14. In order to prove the case of the claimant, the claimant himself

was examined as PW1. He is the best person to speak about the

manner of the accident and about the injuries sustained by him in

the road accident. PW1 deposed in his evidence about the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent lorry and

about the receiving of injuries in the same accident. As per his

evidence, the lorry came from behind and dashed his motor cycle.

Ex.A1 certified copy of FIR, Ex.A3 certified copy of charge sheet

coupled with the evidence of PW1 clearly proves about the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent lorry and the

driver of the first respondent lorry, drove the lorry in rash and

negligent manner and dashed the two wheeler of PW1, as a result,

PW1 fell down and sustained injuries. The Tribunal also came to

the same conclusion. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with

the said finding given by the Tribunal.

15. In order to prove the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner got

examined three doctors as PW2 to PW4. PW2 deposed in his

evidence about the treatment given by him to the claimant with

regard to the Urinary tract infection and Urinary problem received by VGKRJ MACMA 2621 of 2015 Page 6 of 11 Dt:14.03.2023

the claimant in the accident. PW3 deposed in his evidence about

the disability sustained by the claimant. PW4 deposed in his

evidence about the nature of the injury sustained by the claimant. In

order to prove the claim, the petitioner also relied on Ex.A2 certified

copy of wound certificate and other medical bills Ex.A4 to Ex.A10,

Ex.A14 to Ex.A16. As seen from Ex.A2, the petitioner sustained

three injuries from out of which, injury Nos.1 and 2 are simple in

nature and injury No.3 is grievous in nature. The evidence of PW4

Dr.G.Venkata Subbaiah coupled with Ex.A2 wound certificate,

Ex.A4 discharge summary and Ex.A5 case sheet of the petitioner

indicates that PW1 sustained one grievous injury and two simple

injuries and the claimant also underwent operation for fracture injury.

As per the evidence of PW2, the petitioner also sustained a problem

to his kidney and that the petitioner is suffering from Urinary problem.

PW2 in his evidence deposed about the suffering of Urinary

infection by the petitioner. As per the evidence of PW2, the

petitioner sustained injury to his right kidney in the said accident.

The Tribunal granted Rs.25,000/- for fracture injury and Rs.10,000/-

for two simple injuries (Rs.5,000/- for each simple injury) and

Rs.25,000/- for injury to right kidney. By giving cogent reasons, the VGKRJ MACMA 2621 of 2015 Page 7 of 11 Dt:14.03.2023

learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.60,000/- under the head

of pain and suffering. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with

the said findings given by the Tribunal.

16. The learned Tribunal, considering the medical bills Ex.A6,

Ex.A10 and Ex.A16, granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- under the

head of medical expenses. There is no need to interfere with the

said finding also, given by the Tribunal.

17. The leaned Tribunal by giving cogent reasons, on considering

the evidence of PW4, granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the

claimant for loss of earnings for a period of four months and the

Tribunal by giving cogent reasons came to conclusion that the

annual earnings of the claimant is Rs.1,00,000/-. The learned

Tribunal by giving cogent reasons rightly came to conclusion that

the petitioner lost his earnings for a period of four months due to the

said road accident.

18. The learned Tribunal also granted an amount of Rs.10,000/-

towards extra nourishment of food and transport charges. On VGKRJ MACMA 2621 of 2015 Page 8 of 11 Dt:14.03.2023

considering the entire evidence on record, there is no need to

interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.

19. The learned Tribunal also granted an amount or Rs.25,000/-

towards loss of amenities. On considering the medical record of

the claimant, since the petitioner sustained injury to his right kidney

in the same accident, which is supported by medical evidence,

therefore, the compensation under the head of loss of amenities in

the life is enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.

20. The learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.75,000/-

towards Physiotherapy Exercise expenses, instead of granting

compensation for disability sustained by the petitioner. In order to

prove the disability, the claimant examined Dr.C.Sanjeevaiah,

Government Orthopedic surgeon in a Medical Board, RIMS hospital,

Kadapa as PW3. PW3 in his evidence deposed that he is a

member of District Medical Board, Kadapa and he examined the

claimant on 25.04.2014 and on clinical verification, he fixed the

permanent disability sustained by the petitioner is 40%. The

Tribunal gave a finding that the disability noticed by PW3 can be

corrected by Physiotherapy exercises and that an amount of VGKRJ MACMA 2621 of 2015 Page 9 of 11 Dt:14.03.2023

Rs.75,000/- is awarded in respect of compensation under the head

of permanent disability. But the said finding given by the Tribunal is

not at all correct and it is quite contrary to law. Therefore, this Court

fells that the said finding given by the Tribunal that the disability

sustained by the petitioner can be cured by undergoing

Physiotherapy exercises, is liable to be set aside. As per the

evidence of PW3, the petitioner is suffering with disability of 40%. It

is a settled principle that a disability to a particular limb cannot be

treated as a disability to whole body. Therefore on considering the

evidence of PW3 and other medical record, this Court fixed the

disability sustained by the claimant is 10%. The Tribunal came to

conclusion that the annual income of the claimant is Rs.1,00,000/-.

Here the age of the claimant is 47 years. The multiplier applicable to

the age group of the deceased as per Sarla Verma and another Vs.

Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others1 is '13', Therefore,

an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- x 10% x 13=

Rs.1,30,000/-) is awarded towards permanent disability of 10%. In

total, an amount of Rs.70,000/- is enhanced. Accordingly, the

2009 ACJ 1298 VGKRJ MACMA 2621 of 2015 Page 10 of 11 Dt:14.03.2023

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from

Rs.2,45,000/- to Rs.3,15,000/-.

21. In the result, the appeal is allowed in-part, by modifying the

order dated 10.08.2015 passed in MVOP No.238/2013 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge,

Kdadapa. It is held that the appellant is entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.3,15,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a. on the

enhanced compensation, from the date of petition, till the date of

payment. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the

balance amount within one month from the date of this judgment.

On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same

along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

________________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J Dated: 14.03.2023.

sj
 VGKRJ                                    MACMA 2621 of 2015
Page 11 of 11                              Dt:14.03.2023






          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO




                   M.A.C.M.A.No.2621 of 2015



                          14.03.2023

sj