Akula Sandeep vs Junnaavula Saraiah and others

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

This appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner under Section 173 of the M.V.Act against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman,, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – VI Additional District Judge), Godavarikhani (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.29 of 2015, dated 06.02.2019.

The brief facts of the case are that earlier claimant/ petitioner had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by the driver of the Lorry. It is contended that on 28.02.2013, the petitioner along with his friend went to Karimnagar on a motor cycle bearing No.AP-15-BE-9415 was returning from Karimnagar to Manthani and when they reached Gundaram Village, the respondent No.1 i.e., driver of lorry bearing No.AP-24-K-0457, came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the petitioner’s bike, due to which the petitioner who was pillion rider fell on the road and sustained grievous, simple injuries all over the body. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Government Civil Hospital, Peddapalli and for better treatment petitioner was shifted to Adhitya hospital, Hyderabad. The Police registered a case in Crime No.34 of 2013 against the driver of offending vehicle for the offence under Section 337 and 338 of IPC.

The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was that due to accident, the petitioner suffered fracture to his right leg, fracture to the medial border of patella, fracture of tibia with proximal 1/3^rd extension and open fracture shaft humerus right displaced, apart from a laceration below the left eye brow, the petitioner was admitted and in the Adhitya Hospital from 01.03.2013 and discharged on 15.03.2013. While discharging, the doctors advised the petitioner to take bed rest for three weeks and advised him to undergo physiotherapy. Due to injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner suffer pain and mental agony and he is unable to attend his normal duties, as such, petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- under various heads as compensation for the said accident.

Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No.1 & 2 Driver and owner of the crime Lorry remained ex-parte. The respondent No.3 & 4 – Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, filed common counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and submitted that the accident occurred due to self negligence of the petitioner and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which read as under:

After hearing both the parties and their rival contentions and perusing the oral and documentary evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.5,30,000/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum.

Being unsatisfied by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner/claimant on the following among the other grounds that the petitioner was 22 years old as on the date of accident and is a photographer by profession and used to earn Rs.10,000/- p.m. Due to accident, the petitioner was admitted in the hospital from 01.03.2013 to 15.03.2013 and the petitioner suffered fracture to his right leg, fracture to the medial border of patella, fracture of tibia with proximal 1/3^rd extension and open fracture shaft humerus right displaced, apart from a laceration below the left eye brow. Accordingly, the petitioner suffered four fracture grievous injuries and incurred expenditure of Rs.4,50,000/- for treatment which was supported with the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. However, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/-to each of the fracture injury and Rs.50,000/- only towards ‘pain and sufferance’ which is meagre.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the Ex.A5-Dischrage Summary and Ex.A14-Prescirption by Dr.Venumadav, the petitioner developed stiffness in the right leg and is not able to bend his right leg, thereby his earning capacity has been totally effected with 100% loss of earning capacity and as such, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards the permanent disability and awarded compensation towards loss of future prospects. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head ‘extra nourishment’, and ‘transportation’.

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 & 4 submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.

None appeared for respondent No.1 & 2.

Heard Sri Ramachandar Rao Vemuganti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 & 4 – Insurance Company. Perused the record.

Admittedly, respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents and occurrence of the accident. The only point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that:

Admittedly, the petitioner got injured due to accident occurred on 28.02.2013. The petitioner claimed that he was working and eking out his livelihood by doing photography and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, however no documentary proof is filed by the petitioner to show that the petitioner was earning Rs.10,000/- per month.

As per Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.15, it appears that petitioner that after the accident, the petitioner was given first-aid and was taken to Government Civil Hospital, Peddapalli and the petitioner was critical, as such he was taken to Adhitya Hospital. The petitioner claimed that he suffered fracture to his right leg, fracture to the medial border of patella, fracture of tibia with proximal 1/3^rd extension and open fracture shaft humerus right displaced, apart from a laceration below the left eye brow. The petitioner was admitted in the Adhitya Hospital from 01.03.2013 and discharged on 15.03.2013. The petitioner claimed that he has spent an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- for treatment, in support of the claim he has filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A15, which are summary and medical bills for Rs.2,50,000/-, but the petitioner himself admitted before the Tribunal that he paid an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- to Adhiya Hospital for Hospital Bills, however, the petitioner spent some more amount at blood bank, hence the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- towards hospital charges, pharmacy bills which appears to be reasonable and needs no interference.

The petitioner suffered four grievous injuries, and the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- for each injury in total awarded Rs.1,20,000/- for four injuries and Rs.10,000/- towards ‘laceration’ and Rs.50,000/- towards ‘pain and sufferance’, which appears to be reasonable and on considering the ground realities it needs no interference. However, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of ‘loss of earnings’, ‘transportation’ ‘attendant charges’, which ought to have been award by the learned Tribunal.

The petitioner claimed that he has suffered 100% disability, but no disability certificate has been filed before the Tribunal or in this Court. Hence, this the claim of the petitioner to awarded 100% loss of earning capacity cannot be considered, but this Court is inclined to award Rs.10,000/- per month, towards ‘loss of earning’, as the petitioner could have taken 3 months bed rest for healing of four fractures, therefore, petitioner is entitled for Rs.30,000/- towards ‘loss of income’. This Court is also inclined to award Rs.5,000/- towards ‘transportation charges’ and Rs.5,000/- towards ‘attendant charges’

On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and given in the table below for easy reference.

Considering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest at 6 % per annum and the same needs no interference by this Court. However, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner/claimant is entitled to interest @ 7.5 % on the enhanced amount.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,30,000/- to Rs.5,70,000/-/- (Rupees Five Lakh Seventy Thousand Rupees only) with the interest of 7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. There shall be no order as to costs

Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.