G. Narasimhulu vs P.Haridar Ali Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 5428 AP

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

                  M.A.C.M.A. No.612 OF 2016

JUDGMENT:

The present appellant is the claimant in M.V.O.P. No.109 of

2015, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge-cum- Special Sessions

Judge, Chittoor (for short, 'the Tribunal'). He filed the aforesaid

Petition claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000 on account of the

injuries received by him in a motor vehicle accident that was

occurred on 26.03.2010 in which the offending vehicle i.e., Auto

bearing No.AP03 X 9429 was involved. As against the claim of

compensation, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of

Rs.75,000/-. Felt aggrieved that the compensation awarded above

is meager, the claimant filed the present Appeal.

2. The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as

described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the petitioner, as set out in M.V.O.P. No.109 of

2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-

cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor in brief is that the

petitioner is a native of Madanapalle and he is working as Field

Assistant in the II Additional District Court, Madanapalle. On

AVRB,J MACMA No.612/2016

26.03.2010 at about 07:15 P.M. when he was proceeding on his

Hero Honda Splendor Plus motorcycle on his official work and

when he reached in front of R.K. Colour Lab, Avenue Road,

Madanapalle, the driver of Auto bearing No.AP03 X 9429 drove the

same in a rash and negligent manner and hit his motorcycle from

his back. Hence, the petitioner fell on the road and sustained

grievous injuries to his left wrist, left forearm, right hand, right

knee and right side of the face and bleeding injuries all over the

body. The petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital,

Madanapalle and thereafter took treatment at MSR Orthopaedic

and Trauma Hospital, Madanapalle there and the doctors therein

referred him to Bangalore for better treatment. At Bangalore, the

petitioner underwent major operation to his left hand and he took

treatment to his right knee. He was admitted as inpatient in

Hasmath Hospital, Bangalore and took treatment there for one

week. After that he used to take treatment there as outpatient. The

petitioner is frequently attending to Hospital at Bangalore for his

regular check up. Petitioner claimed Rs.1,50,000/- towards

medical expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medical

expenses; Rs.30,000/- towards attendant changes and

Rs.20,000/- for transportation. Prior to the accident, the petitioner

was hale and healthy. Now, due to accident, the petitioner became

AVRB,J MACMA No.612/2016

permanently disabled and he cannot lift weight at least of 1 KG.

The petitioner, even as on the date of filing the Petition, is

experiencing severe pain on account of the injuries sustained and

as such he is unable to walk and stand for long time. The Station

House Officer, Madanapelle I Town Police registered the FIR in

Crime No.70 of 2010 against the driver of the offending vehicle for

the offence under Section 338 of IPC and laid a charge sheet in

C.C. No.108 of 2010 before the learned Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Madanapalle. The driver of the Auto had a valid driving

license. The first respondent insured the vehicle with second

respondent. Hence, they are liable for compensation. The

petitioner got enhanced the claim seeking compensation from that

of Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/- as per the order in I.A. No.395

of 2012, dated 01.06.2012.

4. The first respondent remained ex parte.

5. The second respondent got filed a written statement denying

the allegations of the petitioner. The contention of the second

respondent is that the first respondent has no valid driving license

as such the first respondent violated the terms and conditions of

the insurance policy. The claim of the petitioner is high and

AVRB,J MACMA No.612/2016

excessive as such second respondent is not liable to pay any

compensation.

6. Before the learned Tribunal, the following issues were

settled for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred was due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing

Registration No.AP03 X 9429 resulting the injuries to

the petitioner by name G. Narasimhulu?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation,

if so, by whom and to what amount?

3. To what relief?

7. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner examined PW.1 to PW.3

and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-9. Ex.B-1 - insurance policy was

marked with consent but no oral evidence was adduced on behalf

of the contesting respondent.

8. Learned Tribunal, on hearing both sides and after

considering the oral and documentary evidence on record,

awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the petitioner, at the rate

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

the following heads :

AVRB,J MACMA No.612/2016

Sl. Compensation No. Name of the Head awarded in Rs.

1. Transportation to the Hospital Rs.10,000/-

     2.         Extra Nourishment                               Rs.10,000/-
     3.         Damages to clothes & Articles                    Rs.5,000/-
     4.         Pain and Suffering                              Rs.50,000/-
                           TOTAL                                Rs.75,000/-

9. Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid compensation, on the ground

that it is meager, the appellant filed the present Appeal.

10. In deciding this Appeal, the points that arise for

consideration are:

1) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

in M.V.O.P. No.109 of 2015 is just and reasonable and

as to whether the petitioner is entitled to

enhancement, as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

11. POINT Nos.1 & 2: Sri Y.V.S.S. Dharaneesh, learned

counsel, representing Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned

counsel for the appellant/petitioner, would contend that the

evidence on record would prove the disability sustained by the

petitioner and his main contention is that on account of the

injuries received by him, he is still feeling inconvenience, which is

AVRB,J MACMA No.612/2016

evident from the evidence of PW.2. As against the claim of the

petitioner to a tune of Rs.6,00,000/-, awarding compensation of

Rs.75,000/- is not at all sufficient as such the appellant seeks to

enhance the compensation towards the permanent disability

received. He would further submit that when the petitioner

claimed Rs.20,000/- towards transportation charges, the learned

Tribunal allowed only Rs.10,000 and that though the petitioner

was initially referred to Hospital at Madanapalle, later he was

taken to Bangalore itself, which is at a distance of 130 K.Ms from

Madanapalle and took treatment there and even according to the

evidence of PW.2, the petitioner used to visit the Hospital at

Bangalore for a period of one month as such the amount claimed

by the petitioner to a tune of Rs.20,000/- is reasonable but the

Tribunal granted only Rs.10,000/- on this count. The petitioner

also received some simple injuries which were not considered by

the learned Tribunal.

12. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the second

respondent/insurance company, while resisting the claim of the

appellant/petitioner, would submit that the petitioner failed to

prove the disability before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal

rightly held that the petitioner was reimbursed with the medical

AVRB,J MACMA No.612/2016

expenses, which he sustained, as the petitioner was a Government

Employee. The learned Tribunal awarded the compensation

properly under the respective heads. If at all, the appellant is

entitled for any enhancement of compensation, this Court may

consider enhancement only on the ground of pain and suffering

and that he is leaving the matter to the discretion of this Court to

enhance the compensation, if any, but it may not be on the

ground of any permanent disability.

13. PW.1 before the Tribunal is no other than the petitioner who

got filed his chief-examination affidavit and through him Exs.A-1

to A-9 were marked. No oral evidence was let in on behalf of the

contesting respondent except Ex.B-1, which is the copy of

insurance policy marked with consent.

14. Insofar as the findings of the learned Tribunal i.e., the

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

driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, it is not in dispute and

the said findings are not under challenge by way of any cross-

objections. Further, the findings of the learned Tribunal that the

second respondent failed to prove that the first respondent had no

valid driving license is also not under challenge in the present

Appeal by way of any cross-objections.

AVRB,J MACMA No.612/2016

15. There is no dispute about the two grievous injuries received

by the petitioner. One was treated with the surgical intervention,

according to the evidence of PW.2. The evidence of PW.2 is such

that on 27.03.2010, the petitioner came to the Hospital at

Bangalore with two injuries i.e., left wrist commuted fracture and

ACL tear right knee. On the same day, he has undergone

operation. Plate fixation was done to left radius. Petitioner

attended the hospital on various dates till 21.04.2010. Fracture of

left wrist is united with restriction but the right knee ACL ligament

injury remains. They suggested the petitioner to go for further

operation to his right knee and the same would cost around

Rs.1,20,000/-. The removal of plate in left wrist would cost around

Rs.50,000/-. He examined the petitioner on the date of his

evidence and found restriction of movement left, restriction of grip

strength left hand, restriction of pinch strength of left hand,

restriction of hook grasp as lifting weight of left hand and

disability of left upper limb. He opined that the permanent

disability to upper limb is 46% and left total body is 12%.

16. It is to be noted that there is no dispute about the surgical

intervention, in respect of the injury No.1 is concerned with

fixation of plate. The petitioner did not file any proof, whatsoever,

AVRB,J MACMA No.612/2016

to prove the disability in accordance with law and further the

future expenditure. In respect of the expenditure incurred by the

petitioner with regard to Injury Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, his

claim was reimbursed by the Government as the petitioner was a

Government employee. On this count, the Tribunal rightly

negatived the contention of the petitioner but the thing is that on

account of the surgical procedure done on injury No.1, the

petitioner even on the date of evidence was feeling some

inconvenience. He did not go for the surgery of his right knee on

account of various reasons. It is not a mere fracture of left fore-

arm but it was attended by a lengthy surgical procedure. Apart

from that, there was right knee ACL ligament injury.

17. Having regard to the pain and suffering which might have

been encountered by the petitioner at the time of receipt of injuries

and post surgical intervention, I am of the considered view that

the Tribunal ought to have at least considered a sum of

Rs.35,000/- to each injury. If it is a simple fracture without any

surgical intervention, this Court would not have interfered with

the quantum of Rs.50,000/- on the count of pain and suffering.

Petitioner continued his plight in respect of the right knee ACL

ligament injury without any surgical procedure, though was

AVRB,J MACMA No.612/2016

advised to do so. Hence, I see considerable force in the claim of the

petitioner to award a sum of Rs.35,000/- each towards two

injuries on the count of pain and suffering. There is no evidence

on record to show that the petitioner was hovering around the

Hospital at Bangalore for a period of one year. The evidence of

PW.2 is that for a period of one month the petitioner moved

around the Hospital at Bangalore. There is no dispute that the

distance between Madanapalle and Bangalore is around 130 KMs.

He was referred to the Hospital with fractures. Later, even after

treatment, he was attending the hospital. Considering the same,

The Tribunal ought to have granted the transportation charges of

Rs.20,000/- instead of restricting the claim of the petitioner to a

tune of Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.10,000/-

towards extra nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards damages to

clothes and articles. The evidence of PW.3, who initially attended

the petitioner in his hospital at Madanapalle, also shows two

simple injuries received by the petitioner. The Tribunal did not

consider the same. Having regard to the above, a sum of

Rs.5,000/- each towards two simple injuries is liable to be

sanctioned.

AVRB,J MACMA No.612/2016

18. Considering the same and having regard to the overall facts

and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of

Rs.70,000/- towards pain and suffering as against Rs.50,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards

transportation charges as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal and further a sum of Rs.10,000/- in total for the two

simple injuries at Rs.5,000/- for each simple injury, which was

not considered by the learned Tribunal. Hence, I am of the

considered view that the appellant/petitioner is entitled for a sum

of Rs.1,15,000/- but the Tribunal awarded the compensation of

Rs.75,000/-. Hence, the compensation is liable to be enhanced.

Hence, the award of the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with to

the extent indicated above.

19. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

is allowed in part enhancing the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.1,15,000/- with interest at the

rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

On such deposit of the enhanced compensation, the

appellant/petitioner is entitled to withdraw the said deposited

amount in lump sum. No order as to costs.

AVRB,J MACMA No.612/2016

Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date: 10.11.2023 DSH