Akula Urmila vs Abdul Javeen

B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.—All the four appeals are outcome of the three claims covered by respective O.P. Nos. 696, 695 and 717 of 2002. Three appeals are preferred against the three O.Ps. supra by the respective injured, impugning the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No. 696 of 2002 of Rs. 5,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum as utterly low, in O.P. No. 695 of 2002 of Rs. 5,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum as also utterly low and in O.P. No. 717 of 2002 of Rs. 73,728/- with interest at 7.5% per annum also utterly low of the three claims decided respectively and separately by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III A.D.J.) (FTC), Nizamabad (for short, ''the Tribunal''), dated 31.01.2007. Whereas M.A.C.M.A. No. 5226 of 2008 was filed by the 2nd respondent-insurer among the two respondents including the owner-Respondent No. 1 of the Jeep bearing No. AP 25 T 3371, by disputing the said awarding of compensation of Rs. 73,728/- as unsustainable. Hence, all the four appeals are taken up together with a common decision.

Heard the respective counsel in all the four appeals at length and perused the material on record.

For sake of convenience, the parties are being referred as arrayed before the Tribunal.

The 2nd respondent-insurer for 1st respondent-owner of jeep remained ex parte before the Tribunal and equally even not duly served, which is no way fatal to the maintainability of the appeal as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Meka Chakra Rao Vs. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others, .

Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeals are:

"1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in all the three claims respectively are utterly low or exorbitant insofar as O.P. No. 717 of 2002 concerned and if so, what is the just compensation, if at all the claimants are entitled in the three claims to decide for any modification to enhance or to reduce, as the case may be, and with what observations?

To what result?"

Point No. 1:

The law was set in motion by the claimant in O.P. No. 695 of 2002 (M.A.C.M.A. No. 1419 of 2007) by name Smt. Rahema Bee in her report to the police that was received on 01.04.2002 at about 8.45 a.m., which speaks she is a marks woman that cause prepared the report on 31.03.2002 with averments that she is rolling of beedies by avocation and on that day i.e., 31.03.2002 while she along with one Laxmi, Urmila, Papaiah and Mahaboob were proceeding in the jeep belongs to the 1st respondent, insured with the 2nd respondent, bearing No. AP 25 T 3371, while crossing a turning at Oddeatpally tank area, which was at about 8.30 p.m., from the rash and negligent driving of the driver-Md. Khaiser, the jeep turned turtle and they received injuries and hence to take action. There is nothing to say from the report about the Papaiah-claimant in O.P. No. 717 of 2002 sustained any severe injuries, much less crush injuries to result amputation of his leg above knee joint, much less on that night or next day for immediate amputation. Among the documents filed the respective injury certificates issued by P.W. 2-T. Narsing Rao, who is a known Doctor of his incredibility with several observations by this Court about his giving false certificates to support the false claims and coming to depose as a witness with no regard for truth for not to give any probative value to his certificates even with his evidence, particularly insofar as O.P. No. 717 of 2002 concerned not consistent apart from bereft of material particulars besides running contrary to the evidence of the claimant so-called injured P.W. 1. P.W. 1-injured stated in his chief-examination that he sustained fracture to his right thigh and there from amputation of the right lower limb ankle resulted with fracture to right femur besides sustained multiple grievous injuries. As referred supra, the F.I.R. is silent regarding the alleged so-called severe injuries. In the cross-examination, P.W. 1-injured deposed that he lost teeth that is not even there in his chief examination, however again says the tooth lost by him was due to illness. He denied the suggestion of he is more than 65 years though claimed as 45 years with pretence of he was not even born by the time the police action for pre-independence movement on that area and what he deposed is he does not remember in whose vehicle he was travelling and registration number of the vehicle and for his saying the accident occurred when the vehicle dashed against a big boulder and there were six persons in the jeep and he does not know almost all other persons and he was a gratitutous passenger not fair paid and he does not know even the name of the driver, but for muslim person and he did not report to the accident and he sustained injuries only to both legs and he was treated as inpatient for four days in the private hospital of Dr. Narsing Rao and not in Government Hospital and he does not know whether the vehicle was shown involved twenty days before in another accident and he deposed that his right leg up to knee joint was crushed and amputated to above knee joint and denied the suggestion of he sustained injuries in the alleged accident and he does not know whether Narsing Rao''s Hospital is located and for saying he spent Rs. 1,00,000/- for treatment or Rs. 80,000/- as mentioned in the chief-affidavit, he could not produce any basis and he claims his right leg was amputated and denied the suggestion that he did not sustain the injuries in the alleged accident and he has no avocation, much less getting any income from she-buffaloes (milk cattle) and manipulate the certificate by using Dr. Narsing Rao for the claim purpose, which is false. The observation of the Court is there is a crush injury to the left leg not heeled and there is amputation above knee joint of the right leg and the injured is more than 60 years old. In fact, from this when compared to the evidence of Dr. Narsing Rao-P.W. 2 claimed as private medical practitioner, whereas the wound certificate issued shows as if Medical Officer of Government Headquarters Hospital and in the formative prescribed to issue by Duty Doctors and as if on requisition received from the police though P.W. 1''s evidence supra speaks otherwise equally of P.W. 2-chief examination supra, in fact what P.W. 2 deposed he only examined on 01.04.2002 in his private hospital and found Traumatic amputation of right lower limb and claimant sustained in road accident, for which he issued Ex. A.3-certificate. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he is not having any record to say who brought the patient to the hospital and he was not working in Government Hospital by then and even in the certificate-Ex. A.3 he did not mention which type of vehicle caused the injury and on whose direction he treated the injured and he did not produce any accident register maintained and there is no x-ray even produced and denied the suggestion of it is a false certificate and he further deposed that he cannot say whether he gave treatment to the petitioner or not even. A perusal of the so-called disability certificate obtained from the Medical Board in this case by the petitioner marked as Ex. A.5 mention at column No. 7 as to post traumatic A/K amputation of the right lower limb with 80% disability in specifically saying not valid for legal purposes. The certificate was issued dated 12.08.2005 on examination and there is nothing even to say what the stump is remained from the thigh region and above knee to what extent of the right leg that was lost in the amputation. P.W. 2''s evidence did not speak as to he conducted the operation for the injured, but for simply examined on 01.04.2002. The disability certificate of the Medical Board supra is obtained more than 3 1/2 years after the alleged accident. It clearly speaks, there is some amputation and some other injury to the both legs and lost teeth, the injured sustained somewhere prior to the accident and taking advantage of his travelling in the jeep and sustaining injuries, he made an attempt by misusing with that Dr. Narsing Rao to create the evidence if possible as if there was severe injuries he sustained in the accident that resulted amputation though the fact otherwise. These aspects the Tribunal did not consider in awarding compensation of Rs. 73,728/-.

Even coming to the other two claims, though there is evidence of Dr. Narsing Rao, the Tribunal rightly hold his evidence is unreliable so also his alleged medical certificate marked Ex. A.3 respectively in considering only simple injury sustained by the respective two claimants in awarding Rs. 5,000/- in each. In fact, from the simple injuries even sustained by the respective claimants in O.P. Nos. 696 and 695 of 2002 respectively, as the manner of accident is proved, but not the manner of sustaining injuries or its severity as discussed supra though these are simple injuries or the mental coma that the claimants were put to in the accidental occurrence minimum Rs. 10,000/- each that can be reasonable be awarded in the two claims in O.P. Nos. 696 and 695 of 2002 respectively covered by M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 1277 and 1419 of 2007 to enhance the claim from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- each with interest at 7.5% per annum and coming to the claim in O.P. No. 717 of 2002 equally he is one of the persons, who was travelling in the jeep and proved about sustaining of injuries, but for to say the alleged amputation is not outcome of the alleged accident while he was travelling in the jeep on the fateful day 31.03.2002, but for the other injury to the left leg, if any, among other simple injuries, from that a maximum Rs. 25,000/- in all is more than a just compensation and the Tribunal taking consideration of the amputation and by adopting multiplier in awarding Rs. 73,728/-, thereby unsustainable and requires to reduce to Rs. 25,000/-. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is answered.

POINT No. 2:

In the result, M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 1277 and 1419 of 2007 are allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- in each case with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till realization and M.A.C.M.A. No. 1444 of 2007 is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A. No. 5226 of 2008 is allowed while reducing the compensation from Rs. 73,728/- to Rs. 25,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till realization and rest of the awards of the Tribunal holds good. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.