Ravula Krishna, Ranga Reddy Dist vs M/S Ch Mr Edunl Socy, Ranga Reddy ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3666 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.1798 of 2016
JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the

order and decree dated 13.11.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.1310 of 2012 on

the file of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,

for the injuries sustained by the appellant, who has filed the O.P.

claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- together with interest and

costs.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as

arrayed in the O.P.

3. On 12.03.2012 at about 3.00 p.m., while the claimant was

proceeding to petrol bunk on his scooter bearing No.AP-36-H-2815

and when he reached Ramireddy Thota, Ibrahimpatnam, suddenly,

a TATA Indica car bearing No.AP-29-BJ-7516, driven by its driver

in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the scooter of the

claimant, due to which, the claimant sustained fracture to the left

leg femur, a head injury and other fractures. It is the further case

of the claimant that he incurred medical expenses and lost income

GAC, J MACMA.No.1798 of 2016

due to the injuries sustained by him and became permanently

disabled after the accident.

4. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the 2nd

respondent/Insurance Company denying the manner of accident,

age, avocation and earning capacity of the claimant and also the

medical expenses incurred by him.

5. The Tribunal, on examining the oral and documentary

evidence on record, partly allowed the O.P., awarding a total

compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- along with costs and interest

@7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization. Seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimant

has filed this appeal.

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Claimant contended

that the order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence on

record and probabilities of the case and the Tribunal ought to have

considered 25% of disability as per Ex.A-13. It is further

GAC, J MACMA.No.1798 of 2016

contended that the Tribunal have erred in awarding less

compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life,

transportation charges, pain and suffering, extra nourishment,

future medical expenses and other conventional charges.

8. A perusal of the evidence of PW-2 i.e. the Doctor

(Orthopedic surgeon) who treated the claimant, show that the

claimant was treated as in-patient from 14.03.2012 to 21.03.2012.

He further deposed that the claimant sustained fracture of left

femur, for which, he gave conservation treatment in Foral of POP,

injection and physiotherapy and that the claimant also underwent

follow-up physiotherapy in his hospital.

9. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary

evidence on record, has granted compensation to the claimant

under the following heads:

1. Grievous injury, pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-

 2.   Simple injury                          Rs.9,000/-
 3.   Medical Expenses                       Rs.51,000/-

4. Attendant, transportation and extra- Rs.5,000/-

nourishment charges

5. Disability Rs.25,000/-

      TOTAL                                  Rs.1,20,000/-

                                                                   GAC, J
                                                     MACMA.No.1798 of 2016

10. It is the specific contention of the claimant that as a laborer,

he used to earn a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. Ex.A-13 is the

disability certificate issued by PW-2, which clearly disclose that

the claimant sustained 25% of partial permanent disability and he

had difficulty in sitting, squatting, walking, stiffness of left knee

joint and difficulty in doing labour work. But the Tribunal did not

consider the disability certificate issued by PW-2. Admittedly, it is

for the District Medical Board to issue disability certificates and

PW-2 being a private Doctor, cannot issue the disability certificate.

For the reasons best known to the claimant, he has not produced

any disability certificate from the District Medical Board. The

Tribunal has observed that the disability certificate of the District

Medical Board was not placed as evidence and in the absence of

such certificate, the Tribunal assessed the disability of the claimant

as 10% instead of 25%.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment

of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Syed Saleem and

others v. Abdul Shukur & another1, wherein, their Lordships

2007 (1) ALT 648

GAC, J MACMA.No.1798 of 2016

have held that there is no requirement to prove disability by

examining the Doctor who treated the victim and to obtain such

certificate from the very same Doctor. Though the facts and

circumstances of the present case differ from the above judgment,

the ratio has to be followed. In the present case, PW-2 is the

Doctor who treated the claimant and issued Ex.A-13/certificate.

The cross-examination of PW-2 clearly disclose that he has not

treated the claimant immediately after the accident and the

claimant came to his hospital on 14.03.2012 i.e. two days after the

accident. His evidence further disclose that Medical Board was

constituted by the Government to issue disability certificates and

he has not mentioned the guidelines in the disability certificate

issued by him i.e. Ex.A-13.

12. The District Medical Boards are constituted to issue

disability certificates by assessing the percentage of permanent or

partial disabilities sustained by the injured. The District Medical

Board contains a team of three Doctors in order to assess the

disability. Admittedly, Ex.A-13 was issued by PW-2, who was one

of the members of the District Medical Board. There is no oral or

GAC, J MACMA.No.1798 of 2016

documentary evidence before the Tribunal to grant compensation

towards future medical expenses or for the loss of expectation of

life or loss of income.

13. In the aforesaid judgment in Syed Saleem's case, while

referring to the judgment in Charan Singh v. G. Vittal Reddy2,

the learned Single Judge held as under;

"14. .....I am fortified in my view by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Charan Singh's case. The relevant portion of Para 9 of the judgment reads thus:

"....As it is, Workmen's Compensation Act is a beneficial legislation enacted for protecting the interests of Workmen who are the victims of accidents during the course of their employment and, therefore, clear-cut method has been stipulated in the Act itself. In case of scheduled injuries, even in the absence of any medical evidence, the compensation will automatically follow as per the schedule to the said Act. But, the difficulty conies only in the case of non-

scheduled injury in respect of which, assessment has to be made by the qualified medical practitioner as contemplated under the Act. From this, it cannot be concluded that the qualified medical practitioner should be only the medical practitioner who has treated the workmen concerned. If that is to be accepted, it leads to several anomalies. The doctor who treated the workmen may not be available for various reasons and the workmen cannot be expected to stay at a particular station forever. Further, the

2003 (1) An.W.R. 741 (DB)

GAC, J MACMA.No.1798 of 2016

permanent disability cannot be assessed immediately on the next day of the sustaining the injuries. In order to assess the permanent disability, naturally, wounds have to be healed so as to make assessment of the permanent disability in relation to loss of earning capacity. The learned Single Judge has recorded finding in his order that the doctor who treated the workmen ought to have been examined and the certificate issued by the doctor after lapse of time ought not to have been relied on. But under the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, there is no such requirement to prove the disability by examining the very same doctor who treated the workmen and to obtain such certificate from the very same doctor."

15. Though the above case arise under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the ratio laid down by the Division Bench can be made applicable to the instant case which arise under the Motor Vehicles Act, since under the Motor Vehicles Act and he rules made thereunder, there is no requirement to prove the disability by examining the very same doctor who treated the victim and to obtain such certificate from the very same doctor. The ratio can also be adopted since both the Act are beneficial legislations.""

Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant is

entitled for enhanced compensation.

14. There is no specific evidence on record as to the income of

the claimant. Under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance

GAC, J MACMA.No.1798 of 2016

Insurance Co. Ltd3., took the income of the claimant as Rs.4,500/-

per month. Considering the same, the income of the claimant

herein can be taken as Rs.4,500/- per month and the annual income

would come to Rs.54,000/-. If the disability of 25% is taken into

consideration, it would come to Rs.13,500/-. The age of the

injured is 31 years, for which, the multiplier applicable is '16' as

per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v.

Delhi Transport Corporation4. Therefore, an amount of

Rs.2,16,000/- (Rs.13,500 X 16) can be awarded towards loss of

income.

15. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the compensation under

different heads as under:

1. Grievous injury pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-

    2.   Simple injury                          Rs.9,000/-
    3.   Medical Expenses                       Rs.51,000/-

4. Attendant, transportation and extra- Rs.5,000/-

nourishment charges

5. Disability including loss of income Rs.2,16,000/-

TOTAL Rs.3,11,000/-

Thus, the claimant/appellant is entitled to an amount of

Rs.3,11,000/- towards compensation, payable by respondent Nos.1

(2011) 13 SCC 236

(2009) 6 SCC 121

GAC, J MACMA.No.1798 of 2016

and 2 jointly and severally within two months from the date of

receipt of this order and the appellant is permitted to withdraw the

entire amount as the accident occurred in the year 2012.

16. Appeal is accordingly allowed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 13.07.2022

ajr