Pattan Adam Khan, Guntur Dist. vs P. Nabi Khan Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 5352 AP

BVLNC                                                  MACMA 886 of 2012
Page 1 of 9                                           Dt: 07.11.2023




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

                        M.A.C.M.A.No.886 OF 2012

J U D G M E N T:

This appeal is preferred by the claimant, challenging the order

dated 12.07.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.381/2006 on the file of Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Addl.District Judge, Guntur, (for

short 'the Tribunal'), wherein the Tribunal partly allowed the petition,

awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from

the date of petition, till the date of realisation for the injuries sustained

by the petitioner/claimant in a motor vehicle accident.

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

before the tribunal.

3. As seen from the record, the petitioner filed the application

U/s.160 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") claiming

compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the injuries and

disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 19.12.2004.

4. The facts would show that on 19.12.2004 while the petitioner

was proceeding in auto bearing No.AP 07U 9024 from Marrichettu

Thanda towards Bellamkonda and at about 5.00 p.m., when the said

auto reached Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Kethavaram, the driver of auto BVLNC MACMA 886 of 2012 Page 2 of 9 Dt: 07.11.2023

drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, and as a result, lost

control over the auto and the said auto turned turtle and fell on the

left leg of the petitioner. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to

Venkateswara Hospital, Piduguralla, where he underwent treatment.

The Bellamkonda Police registered a case against the driver of

auto bearing No.AP 07U 9024 in Cr.No.59/2004 for the offence

punishable U/s.337 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner suffered

shock and pain and has become permanently disabled. The petitioner

spent huge amount for his treatment. Hence, the petitioner is claiming

compensation jointly and severally from 1 st respondent, owner of auto

(crime vehicle) and 2nd respondent, who is insurer of auto bearing

No.AP 07U 9024.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/owner of auto bearing

No.AP 07U 9024 (crime vehicle) remained ex-parte.

6. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company APSRTC filed written

statement, while traversing the material averments with regard to

manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of

the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, age and

avocation of the petitioner, alleged permanent disability, liability to pay

compensation, and contended that there was no negligence on the part

of driver of auto. The driver of auto did not possess valid driving BVLNC MACMA 886 of 2012 Page 3 of 9 Dt: 07.11.2023

license and that the auto was not insured with the 2nd respondent.

The said auto was over loaded and owner of auto violated the terms

and conditions of the insurance policy. The compensation amount

claimed by the claimant is highly excessive.

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

framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP 07U 9024?

2. To what compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom?

3. To what relief?

8. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined himself as

P.W-1 and during his evidence, 19 documents were marked as Exs.A-1

to A-19 respectively. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance

Company, R.W-1 was examined and three documents were marked as

Exs.B-1 to B-3 respectively.

9. The learned Tribunal, taking into consideration of the evidence

placed by the claimant and Insurance Company, answered issue No.1

holding that accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving BVLNC MACMA 886 of 2012 Page 4 of 9 Dt: 07.11.2023

of the auto i.e., 1st respondent. The owner of the auto or the Insurance

Company did not challenge the said finding of the learned Tribunal.

10. The learned Tribunal, considering the evidence placed before it,

answered issue No.2 holding that the claimant did not examine the

doctor to prove Ex.A-3 wound certificate as well as Ex.A-4 x-ray film to

establish that the claimant sustained grievous injuries as contended

by him. But in view of the fact that the claimant sustained injury due

to the motor accident, awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and

suffering, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.5,000/-

towards loss of income during the period of treatment. The learned

Tribunal did not grant any amount towards loss of earnings on

account of alleged permanent physical disability claimed by the

appellant/claimant.

11. The learned counsel for appellant/claimant contended that the

claimant in his evidence deposed that he sustained fracture to his left

leg and suffered permanent disability, and the same was corroborated

by Ex.A-3 wound certificate and Ex.A-4 x-ray film placed by the

claimant before the learned Tribunal and therefore, the order of the

learned Tribunal in rejecting the claim of the appellant for loss of

earnings due to permanent physical disability is erroneous.

 BVLNC                                              MACMA 886 of 2012
Page 5 of 9                                       Dt: 07.11.2023

12. The learned counsel for Insurance Company would contend that

there is no error committed by the learned Tribunal in rejecting the

claim of the claimant/appellant towards loss of earnings on account of

permanent physical disability as the said fact was not proved by the

appellant/claimant by examining any doctor, who treated him for the

injuries sustained by him in the accident.

13. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would

arise for consideration in this appeal are as under:

1. Whether the learned Tribunal committed any error in rejecting the claim of the claimant towards loss of earnings due to permanent physical disability?

2. To what relief?

14. POINT No.1:

The contention of the appellant/claimant is that in the alleged

motor accident, he sustained injuries to his left leg, and as a result, he

suffered fracture of tibia and fibula of the left leg, and therefore, he

sustained permanent physical disability and he is unable to attend the

work as he was attending prior to the date of accident, and as a result,

he suffered loss of earnings, and hence he is entitled to a sum of

Rs.1,45,000/- towards loss of earnings due to permanent physical

disability.

 BVLNC                                            MACMA 886 of 2012
Page 6 of 9                                     Dt: 07.11.2023

15. The claimant examined himself as P.W-1 before the learned

Tribunal. In the chief-examination affidavit, he stated that in the

alleged accident, he sustained injuries to his left leg and due to said

injuries, he is unable to do any work as usual, and operation was

conducted to his left leg and a steel rod was inserted to set right the

fracture. P.W-1 filed few documents, which were marked as Ex.A-3 and

Ex.A-4. Ex.A-3 is would certificate and Ex.A-4 is x-ray film. But he did

not examine any doctor to prove the alleged permanent partial

disability. In the light of above facts and circumstances and in view of

the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court relating to award of

compensation in claims based on personal injuries rendered in the

case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another1, the petitioner is not

entitled to any compensation under the head for loss of future

earnings.

16. However, it is admitted fact that the appellant/claimant

suffered fracture and operation was conducted to the left leg.

Considering the discomfort suffered by the claimant on account of the

fracture and consequent surgery by implanting steel rod to set right

the fracture, this Court is of the opinion that a sum of Rs.50,000/- can

2011 (1) SCC 343 BVLNC MACMA 886 of 2012 Page 7 of 9 Dt: 07.11.2023

be awarded under the head loss of amenities, in addition to the

compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal.

17. Therefore, the appeal be allowed partly by modifying the order

and decree passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the point is

answered.

18. POINT No.2: To what relief?

In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal is liable to be

partly allowed by modifying the order and decree dated 12.07.2010

passed in M.V.O.P.No.381/2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-II Addl.District Judge, Guntur.

19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the order

and decree dated 12.07.2010 passed by the learned Tribunal in

M.V.O.P.No.381/2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-

cum-II Addl.District Judge, Guntur, by holding that the claimant is

entitled to a compensation of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five

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

the date of deposit, instead of Rs.25,000/- as awarded by the learned

Tribunal. The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to

pay the compensation amount to the appellant. There shall be no order

as to costs.

 BVLNC                                                 MACMA 886 of 2012
Page 8 of 9                                          Dt: 07.11.2023

The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five

Thousand only), along with accrued interest thereon, within six (06)

weeks from the date of judgment. In the event of the 2nd

respondent/Insurance Company had already deposit some amount,

the said amount be excluded, and the balance amount shall be

deposited within six (06) weeks from the date of judgment.

On such deposit, the Appellant/claimant is permitted to

withdraw the amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand

only) along with accrued interest thereon.

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

stand closed.

                                        _____________________________
                                        B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J
07.11.2023

psk
 BVLNC                                   MACMA 886 of 2012
Page 9 of 9                            Dt: 07.11.2023

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

M.A.C.M.A.No.886 OF 2012

7th November, 2023

psk