N. Ajjappareddi vs Selvaraj and Others

Srinivasa Iyengar, J.—These two appeals arise out of the Award dated 26.9.1974 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga, in MVC No. 15 of 1972. The first appeal is by the claimant, who was the injured in a motor-lorry accident, which took place on 14-10-1971 near Adivala on the Poona Banglore Highway. The other appeal is by the insurance company.

On 14-10-1971 the claimant Ajjappa Reddy had engaged a lorry bearing Registration No. MYU 3838 to transport onions that had been grown in his land to Bangalore. On the way, there was a breakdown of the lorry as its springs broke. Therefore, the driver of that lorry stationed it on the left side of the road, put the wheel on a jack and then proceeded to Hiriyur to get a spare spring. Ajjappa Reddy and two others were taking rest, Ajjappa Reddy sitting by the side of the stationed lorry, stretching his feet underneath the frame and the body of the lorry. When he was so sitting, another lorry bearing No. MDL. 3326 driven by Respondent No. 1 Selvaraj came and dashed against the stationary lorry, thereby moving it. The wheels of that lorry ran over the legs of Ajjappa Reddy, badly damaging both his legs. He was thereafter taken to the hospital at Chitradurga and got treated. He was an inpatient in that hospital for about 20 days and thereafter he was transferred to the Victoria Hospital at Bangalore for treatment where he had to be an in-patient for a total period of 3| months. A petition u/s 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, to be hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'', claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. One lakh, was filed. It had been alleged that on account of the accident and on account of the injuries sustained by Ajjappa Reddy, his legs have been disabled and they have become useless and will have to be amputated at some time or the other. The case of the Respondents was that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. It was also contended on behalf of the insurance company that the claim could not be adjudicated under the Motor Vehicles Act and it was not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal rejected the contention raised on behalf of the insurance company and held that the claimant was entitled to Rs. 25,500/- by way of compensation with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the Award, namely, 26-9-1974. The injured person has preferred M. F. A. No. 148/75 contending that the compensation awarded was inadequate. The insurance company has preferred M. F. A. No. 425/75 contending that it was not liable to pay any compensation and the matter could not have been investigated u/s 110A of the Act. It has also raised contentions regarding the compensation awarded.

We will first take up the appeal of the insurance company. The contention that the claim could not have been adjudicated u/s 110-A of the Act is, in our opinion, untenable. The lorry had been insured against third party risk. Merely because the lorry itself did not strike against Ajjappa Reddy, it cannot claim that it is absolved of its liability. The striking of that lorry against the stationary lorry, which was the immediate cause for injury to the person, is covered by the risk, the coverage of which has been undertaken by the insurance company. u/s 110 of the Act, the Tribunals are constituted for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles and the insurance policy is also in regard to the risks attendant on the use of motor vehicles in a public place. It is therefore, clear that this is a claim arising u/s 110 of the Act and the Tribunal was competent to adjudicate upon the claim.

The other grounds raised on behalf of the insurance company are really matters in regard to which it has no right of defence and therefore do not merit any consideration. It is contended that Ajjappa Reddy was stretching his legs and it amounted to contributory negligence. This is too far-fetched and lacks substance. Accordingly, M. F. A. No. 425/75 fails and is dismissed with costs.

The Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses and incidental charges incurred by the injured for the purpose of treatment and a sum of Rs. 500/- to compensate the conveyance charges. The evidence of the claimant was that he had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 2,500/- for treatment at Chitradurga, where he was an inpatient for 20 days and Rs. 7,000/- while he was an inpatient in the Victoria Hospital for a total period of 3 1/2 months. In between, he had engaged taxies to take him to his village and back. Having regard to the length of the period of treatment and the fact that the injured was not in a position to inove about by himself and had the assistance of his wife and children and they had to attend on him while he was an in-patient in the hospitals, the expenditure claimed by him for purposes of medical treatment and incidental charges in a sum of Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 7,000/- respectively cannot at all be said to be excessive or unreasonable. In our opinion, the Tribunal was not right in restricting the expenditure to only Rs. 5,500/- It ought to have allowed the full claim of Rs. 9,500/- under this heading in Addition to Rs. 500/- towards conveyance. We, accordingly, modify the Award of the Tribunal under this heading to Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 5,500/-.

The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for loss of the income of the year of the accident. The evidence of the claimant was that he had raised onions, chillies and other crops over an area of 8 acres and only the onion crop had been harvested and on account of the accident, no one could look after the other crops and therefore they withered away. The Tribunal accepted this evidence and has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. That, in our opinion, was just and reasonable.

The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and suffering and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation towards the loss of amenities and future benefits. The Orthopeadic Surgeon in the Victoria hospital Dr. V.H. Hanumanthaiah (P. W. 8) who treated Ajjappa Reddy, has stated that he is permanently disabled and is not able to walk without crutches. He has also stated that he will not be in a position to do agricultural operations. The disability was 100 percent in the left leg and 75 percent in the right leg. He has further stated that there is no union of the bones and the lower limb has deformed and that the shape of the legs has changed, joints have dislocated and the skin lost. Ajjappa Reddy himself has stated that at one time the Doctors told him that there was no use from these legs and they have to be amputated, but he did not agree for them being amputated and therefore he returned to the village. Even during the course of trial, Dr. Hanumanthaiah, after seeing the patient has stated that he could not rest his left leg on the ground but he could rest his right leg, but it could not stand the entire weight of the body. The Tribunal has also observed that Ajjappa Reddy was being brought to the Court assisted by two persons and that he was not in a position to walk at all. Therefore, it is clear that he has become a cripple for the rest of his life. It is seen that he was the only elderly person who was managing the affairs of his family and the agricultural operations right from the time when he was about 17 or 18 years old, and he had lost his father when he was about 12 years old. His sons are still young and some of them are minors. His eldest son had to give up his studies in order to look after the lands. It is, therefore, clear that the services of Ajjappa Reddy by way of attending to agricultural operations and also by way supervision and guidance to the family in that behalf is considerably impaired, if not, totally lost. The award of a sum of Rs. 15,000/- only in this behalf appears to us to be wholly inadequate. In our judgment, a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- in this behalf is fair and reasonable.

Accordingly, we modify the Award of the Tribunal in this behalf. The total compensation thus payable to the claimant is Rs. 45,000/-. Accordingly, M. F. A. No. 148/75 is allowed and the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 45,000/- payable by the Respondents jointly and severally. The said amount shall carry interset at 6% per annum from 26-9-1974, i. e. the date of the Award, till payment 8. In the result, M. F. A. No. 148/75 is allowed in part with costs, as indicated above. M. F. A. No. 425/75 is dismissed with costs. Advocate''s fee is fixed at Rs. 100/- in each appeal.