Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik Rajiya, Guntur Dist vs Ramesh Anki Reddy, Guntur District Anr on 7 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
I.A.No.3 of 2016/M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.2387 of 2016
IN/AND
M.A.C.M.A. No.1754 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
-
This M.A.C.M.A is directed against the order dated
28.08.2014, by the claimant, in M.V.O.P.No.154 of 2013,
where under, the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal cum II
Additional District Judge, Guntur, ("Tribunal" for short), as
against the claim of the petitioner to award the compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- with regard to the injuries sustained by the
petitioner in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 07.05.2012,
awarded a sum of Rs.17,000/- directing that the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation and that the 2nd respondent shall deposit the
amount within a period of two (2) months and after deposit, the
petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount
immediately.
2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A will hereinafter be referred
to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the petitioner in the M.V.O.P.No.154 of 2013
according to the petition averments, in brief, is that:
(i) The petitioner is the resident of Srinagar, Guntur.
She is doing coolie work and used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month.
She is suffering from polio to her right leg and she is a
handicapped. On 07.05.2012, she along with her brother-in-law
and her son went to Kothapet for the purpose of pledging T.V.,
for her family necessities and after returning by walk when they
reached near Mahalakshmamma Temple, Kothapet, at about
4.15 pm., a car bearing No.AP-07-AM-9786 (hereinafter will be
referred to as "offending vehicle") which was coming from their
back side driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner,
with high speed, hit the petitioner and she fell down on the road
and the car ran over her right leg. Therefore, she received a
fracture injury to her right leg. Immediately, she was admitted
in Government General Hospital, Guntur and after first aid, she
was discharged on the same day. On the next day i.e., on
08.05.2012, she was admitted in Government General Hospital,
Guntur. The doctors treated fracture of right leg and discharged
her on 09.05.2012 and the doctors advised her to take
treatment as outpatient.
ii) The petitioner gave a report to Kothapet Police
Station on 09.05.2012 and Kothapet Police registered it as a
case in Cr.No.222/2012 against the driver of the offending
vehicle under Section 337 IPC. The petitioner is aged about 40
years and she was hale and healthy. She is suffering with pain
due to the accident. The disability caused to the petitioner is
permanent. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending
vehicle and the 2nd respondent is the insurer. Hence, they are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, the claim petition.
4. The 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle
remained ex-parte.
5. The 2nd respondent filed a counter resisting the claim of
the petitioner and the contention in substance is that the driver
of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license
and the insured had committed the breach of terms of insurance
policy. The injuries received by the petitioner are simple in
nature. The petitioner is put to strict proof of the allegations
mentioned in the petition, as such, the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled
the following issues for trial:
(1) Whether the petitioner sustained simple injuries only
and so, the compensation claimed is excessive?
(2) Whether the driver of 1st respondent vehicle has no
valid and effective driving license?
(3) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation as
prayed for?
(4) To what relief?
7. During the course of trial before the Tribunal, on behalf of
the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5
were marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the
contesting respondent No.2.
8. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the
oral as well as documentary evidence, made findings that the 1st
respondent has valid driving license and that the petitioner by
virtue of the evidence proved the rash and negligent act against
the 1st respondent and the evidence of the petitioner remained
unrebutted and that the petitioner sustained only the simple
injury and that she did not prove any disability. The Tribunal
arrived at the compensation payable by the respondents under
different heads as that of Rs.17,000/- as against the claim of
Rs.2,00,000/-. While holding so, the Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs.17,000/- as above.
9. Felt aggrieved that the compensation so awarded by the
Tribunal is not just and reasonable, the petitioner filed the
present Appeal.
10. As against the findings of the Tribunal that the accident
occurred was due to rash and negligent act of the 1 st respondent
in driving the offending vehicle and that the 1st respondent had
a valid driving license, no cross objections are filed by the
contesting respondents.
11. Hence, the scope of Appeal is limited as to whether the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
12. The simple question that falls for consideration is as to
whether the award, dated 28.08.2014, on the file of Motor
Accidents Claim Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge,
Guntur, is sustainable under law and facts, insofar as granting
compensation of Rs.17,000/- is concerned, as against the
original claim of Rs.2,00,000/-.
13. P.W.1 before the Tribunal was no other than the
petitioner, who put forth the facts in tune with the pleadings of
his claim petition. Through her examination Exs.A1 to A5 were
marked. Ex.A1 was the certified copy of FIR, Ex.A2 was the
certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A3 was the certified copy of
wound certificates, Ex.A4 was the X-ray films and Ex.A5 was the
Photostat copy of policy. The petitioner further examined PW2-
the Medical Officer, who examined the injured and issued wound
certificate. According to the evidence of PW2, he found a
swelling in size 2X4 cm on right leg. The X-ray of ankle of right
leg reveals fracture of right tibia. The injuries are grievous in
nature.
14. As evident from the judgment of the Tribunal, it reveals
that only Exs.A1 to A5 were marked through PW1. All are
certified copies.
15. The case of the claimant insofar as I.A.No.3 of
2016/M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.2387 of 2016 is that she could not file
the disability certificate issued by the competent authority
before the Tribunal and she received grievous injuries and that
she had the disability of 70%, as such, these documents may be
received. In spite of the opportunity was given, no counter is
filed on behalf of the respondent. As the I.A.No.3 of
2016/M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.2387 of 2016 is taken up along with the
main Appeal, it is also being disposed of along with the
M.A.C.M.A.
16. Before taking up the Appeal, it is pertinent to look into the
case of the petitioner in I.A.No.3 of 2016. The date of accident
was on 07.05.2012. The copy of the proposed document is
dated 11.06.2011. What transpires is that basically, the
petitioner is physically handicapped person affected with polio.
So, she obtained the proposed document so as to claim the
benefits under the schemes of the Government. Thus, this
document is irrelevant so as to decide the present M.A.C.M.A.
This particular document is not going to establish any disability
alleged to be sustained by the petitioner on account of the
accident in question. Apart from the fact that this document is
irrelevant to decide the present M.A.C.M.A, further case of the
petitioner is not satisfying the essential ingredients of under
order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. Hence, the proposed document is not
at all necessary to decide the Appeal.
17. Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant,
would contend that the wound certificate marked on behalf of
the petitioner clearly discloses that the appellant received a
fracture. The findings of the Tribunal that the appellant received
only simple injuries is not at all sustainable on facts. Apart from
PW1, the evidence of PW2 supports the case of the appellant
that she sustained grievous injuries in the road accident. The
findings of the Tribunal that the appellant received simple injury
are without any basis whatsoever. With the above said
submissions, he would submit that the appellant may be given
an opportunity, if the court is going to grant the relief in the
additional evidence application so as to prove her case and
further the compensation granted by the Tribunal on various
grounds is liable to be enhanced.
18. Sri Puppala Suribabu, learned counsel for the contesting
2nd respondent, would seeks to support the judgment of the
Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner did not prove the
disability or the grievous injury before the Tribunal. However,
the Tribunal duly considering the factum of receipt of injuries by
the petitioner, awarded reasonable sums under various heads of
compensation, as such, there is no need to interfere with the
order of the Tribunal.
19. There is no dispute that the 1st respondent was the driver
of the offending vehicle who did not contest the claim of the
petitioner. The evidence on record discloses that on account of
the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent in driving
the offending vehicle, the petitioner received injuries. The police
investigated the case and filed charge sheet, as evident from
Ex.A1 and A2. As seen from the evidence of PW1 and PW2
coupled with Ex.A3 wound certificate, the Medical Officer found
swelling on the right leg and he took X-ray. The X-ray reveals
fracture of right tibia. The Medical Officer opined that the
injuries are grievous in nature. So, the evidence of PW1 that she
received a fracture in the accident in question has support from
the contents of Ex.A3 and from the evidence of PW2. When that
being so, the findings of the Tribunal that the petitioner received
simple injuries is not at all tenable. It appears that the Tribunal
did not look into Ex.A3, wound certificate, carefully and
properly. Thus, the fact remained is that in the motor vehicle
accident that was occurred on 07.05.2012, in which the 1 st
respondent involved, the petitioner received grievous injuries.
20. There is no dispute that the petitioner was not treated in
the hospital as an inpatient. She was only treated as outpatient.
Apart from that, there was no surgical procedure attended on
PW1. It appears that the fracture of the petitioner was treated
by way of conservative treatment. There is no dispute that the
petitioner did not sustain any disability. Though the petitioner
was suffering from polio prior to the date of accident, the
petitioner did not bring anything in the evidence which shows
that on account of grievous injury she sustained any disability.
As this Court already pointed out that the additional document
proposed to be filed has nothing to do with the disability
subsequent to the accident. So, the petitioner is not entitled to
any compensation under the head of disability.
21. But the fact remained is that when the petitioner suffered
with a grievous fracture, she was awarded compensation of
Rs.5,000/- + Rs.5,000/- only under the heads of pain and
suffering and simple injury respectively. The petitioner was a
feeble person even prior the accident. She received a fracture on
her polio affected leg. The Tribunal ought to have considered to
award proper amount under the head of grievous injury. Without
ascertaining the fact that, she received grievous injury, the
Tribunal simply awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- + Rs.5,000/-
towards pain and suffering and towards simple injury.
22. Having looked into the overall facts and circumstances,
the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner to the polio
affected leg, I am of the considered view, that compensation of
Rs.40,000/- towards grievous injury as a whole is just and
reasonable instead of granting an amount of Rs.5,000/- as
simple and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. Further, the
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra
nourishment. As the petitioner received grievous injury, this
amount of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment has to be
enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal considered the loss of
income of the petitioner for a period of one week. It is to be
noted that as the petitioner received fracture to her polio
affected leg, it is reasonable to consider the loss of earnings at
least for a period of one month and even according to the
petitioner she was doing coolie work by earning Rs.3,000/- per
month, as such, the loss of earnings are to be awarded for a
sum of Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.1,000/-.
23. Having regard to the above, the petitioner is entitled for
enhancement of compensation accordingly. In the light of the
above, I am of the considered view that the award, dated
28.08.2014, just by awarding Rs.17,000/- is not sustainable
under law and facts, as such, the compensation is liable to be
enhanced accordingly.
24. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part with
proportionate costs, enhancing the compensation to Rs.54,000/-
from that of Rs.17,000/- with the same interest from the date of
petition till the date of deposit as awarded by the Tribunal by
holding that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay the said amount and directing the 2 nd
respondent to deposit the difference compensation amount of
Rs.37,000/- within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of copy of this order and on such deposit the petitioner is
permitted to withdraw the entire differentiated amount
immediately.
25. I.A.No.3 of 2016/M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.2387 of 2016 is
concerned shall stand dismissed, accordingly.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Dt.07.02.2024.
MH
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Date: 07.02.2024
MH
