AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 23.01.2008 in O.P.No.1075 of 2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short ‘The Tribunal’), the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal.
The appellant/claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 455 of the A.P.M.V Rules, 1989 for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs only) for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road accident.
Respondent No.1 is the owner of the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP25U4900 and respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company Limited.
Heard Sri Y.S.Yella Nand Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the appellant that on 11.07.2003 the appellant along with Madari Shankar were going on foot on the main road from Nadpur to jannepally and at 08:00 a.m., when they reached Nadapur Shivar, one auto rickshaw bearing No.AP25U4900 belonging to respondent No.1 came at high speed and hit them from behind and as a result both of them sustained serious injuries.
The Tribunal on considerationof the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, gave a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. There is no dispute with regard to the liability of the Insurance Company.
Further to prove the injuries and disability, the appellant examined P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.2 is the doctor who issued disability certificate and P.W.3 is the doctor who treated the appellant. According to P.W.3, the appellant was examined by him on 11.07.2003 and he found crush injury which is grievous and simple in nature. He also deposed that patient was treated with below knee amputation of left leg on 11.07.2003 and he was discharged on 29.07.2003. He also stated that total medical bills were Rs.27,250/- and marked Ex.A5 i.e., medical bills. P.W.3-Doctor is the member of the medical board and issued disability certificate stating that the appellant is suffering with 60% disability, which is marked as Ex.A7.
Though the Tribunal decided that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent manner, the insurance company which is valid on the date of accident has not awarded any amount stating that immediately after the accident, the appellant has not went to the Government Hospital instead he was treated in a private hospital. As such, the Tribunal not awarded any amount.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 were corroborating with regard to the accident and also injuries sustained by him were not examined in the Government Hospital is not a fatal to the case of the appellant. He further submitted that the appellant is amputed and he was unable to walk and without considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal wrongly dismissed the petition of the appellant. As such, the appellant prayed this Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by awarding the compensation.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company supported the judgment of the trial Court and in alternative he submitted that only Rs.3,000/- income of the appellant shall be taken for calculating the loss of earnings towards the disability.
Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the Tribunal has not considered the claim of the appellant stating that when the accident occurred, the injured weretaken to the Government Hospital for medical treatment. Whereas, as per Ex.A2 i.e., charge-sheet the injured was treated by Dr. S.S. Yadav, Civil Surgeon, Nizamabad. The injured by name Battu Narusimha Raju and Devunipalli Avinash who suffered injuries with same accident was treated byCivil Assistant Surgeon, Nizamabad. The injured instead of going to Government Hospital, went to private hospital of P.W.3, as such, the claim of the appellant is not maintainable. It is also observed that the wound certificate was not issued by the Government Hospital and P.W.3 in cross examination admitted that P.W.1 alone came to the hospital and he was not accompanied by any one which creates doubt on the evidence of injured and there were no X-rays to prove the fractures. Therefore, the tribunal has not considered the claim of the appellant.
In this regard, keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Janabai WD/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade Vs. ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Limited (2022) 10 SCC 512 we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has decided the issue as if it was dealing with criminal trial and ignoring that the petition filed before it was a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for grant of compensation to the victims and their legal representatives which is a piece of welfare legislation deals with providing relief to the persons who suffered injuries in the motor vehicle accidents. The relevant paragraph No.11 of the judgment reads as under:
“11. We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of Appellant 1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable.”
In view of the above extracted portion, it is clear that strict Rules and Procedures are not applicable to the claim petitions.
In view of the above, as the appellant received one fractural injury and two simple injuries, this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. As per P.W.3, the appellant spent an amount of Rs.27,500/- and the same is awarded towards medical expenses. Further, the appellant is entitled for Rs.25,000/-towards transportation and extra nourishment. As per the evidence, the appellant was earning Rs.100/- per day as a labour. Therefore, this Court is inclined to consider the income of the appellant as Rs.3,000/- per month and 60% towards disability. Hence, 60% of income i.e., Rs.3,000/- comes to Rs.1,800/-(3,000x60%). Since the age of the deceased was 33 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is ‘17’ as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121. Adopting multiplier 17, his loss of future income would be Rs.3,67,200 (Rs.1,800 x 12 x 17).In total an amount of Rs.4,49,700/-is awarded to the appellant with interest and costs from the date of petition till the date of realization.
In the light of the above mentioned discussion, the claimant is entitled to the following amounts:
Heads
Amounts
Pain and suffering
Rs.25,000/-
Medical Expenses
Rs. 27,500/-
Transporation and Extra Nourishment
Rs.25,000/-
Damage to clothes
Rs.5,000 /-
loss of future earnings (60%) (1,800 x 12 x 17)
Rs.3,67,200/-
Total
Rs.4,49,700/- (Rounded off to Rs.4,50,000/-_
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation amount awarded Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand only). The awarded amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award by the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondents jointly and severallyafter deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier within one (1) month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Judgment and thereafter, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.