Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance ... vs Bachu Lakshmi Devi on 24 June, 2024
APHC010107252016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
3364
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRA BABU
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2536 OF 2016
Between:
The Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Limited,
Rep. by its Manager, Shrirampur,
Ahamed Nagar, Maharashtra State. --- Appellant
and
1. Bachu Lakshmi Devi,
W/o.Narayana Setty,
Aged 58 Years, Hindu,
Kirana Shop, R/o.Mamillapalli
Village and Post, C.K. Dinne
Mandal, Kadapa District.
2. Mr. Atish Chandrabhan Pagire,
Father's name not known, Age
not known but Major, Owner of
Cruiser Vehicle No.MH-17-V-4695
MEAA 20443 A/P Wambori,
Rahori Taluq, Ahmed Nagar
District, Maharashtra State. --- Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Kota Subba Rao
Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Sri R. Prasad Reddy, Rep.
Sri D. Kodanda Rami Reddy
The Court made the following Judgment:
AVRB,J
Challenge in this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is to the Order, dated 12.04.2016, in M.V.O.P. No.384 of 2013 on
the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV
Additional District Judge, Kadapa (for short, 'the Tribunal')
whereunder the Tribunal, dealing with a claim of compensation
made by the claimant for Rs.2,50,000/-, on account of the injuries
received by her in a motor vehicle accident which was occurred on
16.07.2009, awarded a sum of Rs.2,33,200/- towards
compensation, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till the date of deposit.
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 claimant, in brief, according to the averments
set out in the claim, before the Tribunal, is that on 15.07.2009 the
son of the petitioner had engaged the offending vehicle bearing
No.MH-17-V-4695 belonging to first respondent from Kesineni
Travels, Shirdi in order to go to Aurangabad. On 16.07.2009 in the
morning they left Shirdi and the driver of the vehicle was driving it in
a rash and negligent manner in spite of caution given by the
inmates, lost control over the vehicle and it was turned turtle as a
result of which all the inmates sustained injuries including the
petitioner. The petitioner had taken treatment at Saibaba Hospital.
Then, he was shifted to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad and had spent
Rs.50,000/- towards treatment, Rs.20,000/- towards transport and
attendant charges. Prior to the accident, she was running a kirana
shop and earning Rs.4,000/- per month and after the accident she
AVRB,J
was unable to do any work and was suffering from pain and
disability. Hence, this Petition.
4. The first respondent, owner of the offending vehicle, remained
ex parte and he did not step into the witness box.
5. Second respondent, insurer of the offending vehicle, got filed
a counter denying that the accident said to have taken place on
16.07.2009 and as such the petitioner was put to strict proof of the
same by documentary evidence. The driver of the offending vehicle
was driving it slowly. The petitioner must prove that she sustained
injuries leading to permanent disability and her taking treatment at
Saibaba Hospital and at NIMS Hospital at Hyderabad and spending
Rs.50,000/- towards treatment and Rs.20,000/- towards transport
charges. She had to prove that she was earning Rs.4,000/- p.m.
and that the petitioner was hale and healthy and attending her
duties normally. The compensation claimed was unjust. Hence, the
Petition was liable to be dismissed.
6. The Tribunal, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, settled
the following issues for trial:
1. Whether the accident took place on 16.07.2009 at
07:30 A.M. 3 K.Ms away from Shirdi towards
Aurangabad main road due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of Cruiser Vehicle bearing No.MH-17-V-
4695 resulting injuries to the claimant?
AVRB,J
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If
so, to what extent and from which of the respondents?
3. To what relief?
7. During the course of trial on behalf of the claimant before the
Tribunal, PWs.1 to PW.3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-17 were
marked. On behalf of the second respondent, RW.1 was examined
and Ex.B-1 was marked.
8. The Tribunal, on hearing both sides and after considering the
oral and documentary evidence on record, answered the issues in
favour of the petitioner holding that the accident occurred was due
to rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending
vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.2,33,200/-. The Tribunal
considered the disability as that of 45% while awarding the
aforesaid compensation.
9. The un-successful second respondent/insurer, feeling
aggrieved of the aforesaid order, filed the present Appeal.
10. Now in deciding the present Appeal, the simple question that
falls for consideration is:
Whether the Order of the Tribunal in M.V.O.P. No.384 of
2013, dated 12.04.2016, on the file of the Chairman,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional
District Judge, Kadapa is sustainable under law and
facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with
the same
AVRB,J
POINT
11. Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the
appellant/insurer, would contend that the petitioner was aged more
than 50 years as on the date of accident. There was no functional
disability proved in the accident. Petitioner would have received
injuries to disk portion. So, it is a case where there was no disability
at all. With regard to the inconvenience felt by the petitioner either
on account of the accident or on account of the her old age because
she was suffering with osteoporosis, as evident from the record, the
Tribunal ought to have awarded a lump sum amount towards the so
called inconvenience. But the Tribunal erroneously ascertained the
disability as 45% and awarded excessive compensation which
needs to be reduced.
12. Sri R. Prasad Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri D.
Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the first
respondent/petitioner, originally contended that the Tribunal already
awarded just compensation which needs no interference. When this
Court has sought for clarification, as the disability claimed by the
claimant is totally vague, he submits that this Court may dispose of
the matter basing on the material available on record.
13. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, who was none other than
the claimant, she put forth the facts in tune with her pleadings.
Through her examination Exs.A-1 to A-17 were marked. She was
injured witness with regard to the accident in question. Police
investigated the case and filed a charge sheet alleging rash and
AVRB,J
negligent act against the driver of the offending vehicle. So, the
petitioner was able to prove that the accident was occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, who remained
ex parte.
14. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, petitioner got
examined PWs.2 and PW.3, the Medical Officers. The claimant
examined PWs.2 and PW.3 to prove the nature of injuries and got
marked wound certificate and medical record. According to the
testimony of PW.2 - Dr. C. Sanjeevaiah, he issued disability
certificate and there was 45% disability. PW.3 - Dr. P. Jayanth
Prasad was examined to speak of the physiotherapy done on the
claimant. As seen from the medical evidence available on record,
the petitioner incurred medical expenditure to a tune of Rs.37,341/-,
which was considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded extra
nourishment and attendant charges to a tune of Rs.20,000/-, a sum
of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and further a sum of
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. The petitioner according to
the evidence of PW.2, sustained D12 and L1 laminectomy with D12
- L2 spine fixation with pedicle screw rod system with posterior
lateral fixation for traumatic par paresis due to D-12-L1 wedge
compression fracture and there was mal-united fracture of 6th, 7th
ribs on the right side of the chest. So, undoubtedly, the injuries
received by the petitioner are grievous in nature. Though there was
no functional disability, the Tribunal was inclined to award a sum of
Rs.1,45,800/- under the head of loss of earning power. It is no doubt
true that the petitioner had the disease of osteoporosis but the fact
AVRB,J
remained is that she underwent major surgeries and there was mal-
united fracture to her ribs also. Having regard to the above, the
difficulty in the spinal card of the petitioner on account of the injuries
would be with her for several years. Though there was no functional
disability, the over all amount of Rs.1,45,800/- awarded by the
Tribunal can be taken as a lump sum amount towards the
permanent disability which the petitioner has to suffer throughout
her life. Though the Tribunal labeled this as Rs.1,45,800/- as her
loss of earning power but this Court has power to consider the same
as an amount to compensate the petitioner for the permanent
discomfort in her spinal card which she has to suffer throughout the
life. So, the over all compensation of Rs.2,33,141/- was rounded off
to Rs.2,33,200/-. In the light of the above, this Court is of the
considered view that the Tribunal awarded just compensation which
needs no interference.
15. In the result, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is dismissed confirming the Order, dated 12.04.2016, in M.V.O.P.
No.384 of 2013 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The
appellant/second respondent/insurer shall deposit the rest of the
compensation amount, if any, within a period of one month from this
date.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
Date: 24.06.2024
DSH
