1 M.V.O.P.No. 741 of 2016. II A.D.J., Dt.31.12.2018. W.G., Eluru.
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT:: WEST GODAVARI :: ELURU.
Present: SRI G.GOPI, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. FAC/ Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.
Monday, the 31st day of December 2018.
M.V.O.P. No. 741/2016.
Between:
Noddana Gouri Naga Lakshmi. ….Petitioner.
Versus
1.Kattula Papa Rao.
2.Velagala Srinivasa Reddi.
3.The New India Assurance Company Limited, Tadepalligudem.
4.Karri Srinivasa Reddi.
5.Karri Venkata Lakshmi.
6.The New India Assurance Company Limited, Tadepalligudem.
…. Respondents.
This Petition coming on 10.12.2018 for hearing in the presence of
Sri T.V.V.Swami, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri M.Sambasiva Rao,
Advocate for the 6th respondent, respondents 1 to 5 set exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Tribunal made the following:-
A W A R D
1. This is a petition have been filed under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act r/w Rule 455 of M.V. Rules for claiming compensation of
Rs.50.00 Lakhs from various heads due to the sustaining of injuries by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 20.04.2016 at about 10.00 A.M., near Surya Pipes Company Turning, Pentapadu of West
Godavari District.
2. The brief averments of the petition are that:-
On 20.04.2016 morning, the petitioner and her nearest relative reached Tadepalligudem in a bus, where they engaged one Auto bearing
Number AP 16 TC 5521 to go to Attili. The driver of the said Auto drove 2 M.V.O.P.No. 741 of 2016. II A.D.J., Dt.31.12.2018. W.G., Eluru.
the same in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules and when the Auto reached near Surya Pipes Company turning,
Bhimavaram Road, State Highway of Pentapadu, West Godavari District, at about 10.00 A.M., on 20.04.2016 one Hi-Tech Bus bearing No. AP 18
TC 3737 (herein after referred to as offending vehicle) which was coming from its opposite direction i.e., from Bhimavaram – Tadepalligudem, driven by its driver with high speed and also in rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules, dashed the auto of the petitioner indiscriminately, as a result of which, the Auto turned turtle, the petitioner and other passengers who were travelling in the Auto fallen down on the road and sustained severe, fracture, multiple and grievous injuries on all vital parts of the body.
2.1. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to
Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem, from there to Sudha Hospital,
Tanuku, later Manipal Hospital, Tadepalli, for better treatment.
2.2. The Station House Officer, Pentapadu Police Station of West
Godavari District has registered the Crime No. 52 of 2016 under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC.
2.3. The 1st respondent is the driver, 2nd respondent is the owner and 3rd respondent is the insurance company of the High Tech Bus bearing
Number AP 16 TC 3737, the 4th respondent is the driver, 5th respondent is the owner and 6th respondent is the insurer of the Auto bearing Number
AP 37 TC 5521 at the time of the accident and both the vehicles are validly insurance coverage and the drivers of both the vehicles are having driving licences. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the petition.
3. The respondents 1 to 5 set exparte.
3 M.V.O.P.No. 741 of 2016. II A.D.J., Dt.31.12.2018. W.G., Eluru.
4. In the present petition on hand, the 3rd respondent and 6th respondent insurance companies are one and the same. The 6th respondent insurance company filed the Counter and contested the petition.
5. The averments in the Counters filed by the 6th respondent is that, it denied the averments in the petition particularly, mode and manner of the accident, age and avocation of the petitioner, compensation claimed under various heads, treatment rendered in various hospitals, medical expenses spent by him and the and submitted that they did not receive any information either from the 2nd respondent or the 5th respondent with regard to the alleged accident and hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
5.1. It is further submitted that the respondents 1 and 4 have no valid driving licences and the respondents 2 and 4 have no valid vehicular documents at the time of the accident and thereby there is violation of policy conditions.
5.2. It is also submitted that the compensation claimed by the petitioner under various heads as well as the interest claimed are highly excessive and exaggerated and there is no cause of action to file the petition for compensation and finally prayed the Tribunal to dismiss the petition with costs.
6. Basing on the pleadings, my learned predecessor has settled the following issues for trial:
i.Whether Noddana Gouri Naga Lakshmi sustained injuries in a road accident that took place on 20.04.2016 near Surya Pipes Company, Bhimavaram Road, State Highway, Pentapadu, due to rash and negligent driving of High Tech Bus bearing Number AP 16 TC 3737 being driven by the 1st respondent and also due to rash and negligent driving of the Auto bearing Number AP 16 TC 5221 driven by the 4th respondent?
4 M.V.O.P.No. 741 of 2016. II A.D.J., Dt.31.12.2018. W.G., Eluru.
ii.Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and form which of the respondents?
iii.To what relief?
7. To substantiate their respective pleadings, the petitioner has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and got exhibited Exs.A-1 to A-12.
8. Respondents 1 to 5 set exparte.
9. On behalf of the contesting 6th respondent, none were examined and no document marked, but got marked Ex.B-1. Ex.X-1 is marked through the witness.
10. Heard both sides. The learned Counsel for the petitioner filed the Written Arguments along with relevant decisions.
11. ISSUE No.i:- It is the case of the petitioner/injured examined as P.W.1 is that on 20.04.2016 morning, herself and her nearest relatives reached Tadepalligudem in a bus, where they engaged one Auto bearing
Number AP 16 TC 5521 to go to Attili. The driver of the said Auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules and when the Auto reached near Surya Pipes Company turning,
Bhimavaram Road, State Highway of Pentapadu, West Godavari District, at about 10.00 A.M., on 20.04.2016, by that time one Hi-Tech Bus bearing
No. AP 18 TC 3737 which was coming from its opposite direction i.e., from
Bhimavaram – Tadepalligudem, driven by its driver with high speed and also in rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules, dashed the auto of the petitioner indiscriminately, as a result of which, the
Auto turned turtle, the petitioner and other passengers who were travelling in the Auto fallen down on the road and sustained severe, fracture, multiple and grievous injuries on all vital parts of the body.
Though the injured/P.W.1 was cross-examined by the learned 6th 5 M.V.O.P.No. 741 of 2016. II A.D.J., Dt.31.12.2018. W.G., Eluru.
respondent Counsel, no worthwhile evidence is elicited to discard her evidence.
12. To support of her contention, the petitioner/P.W.1 relied upon
Ex.A-1-attested copy of First Information Report; Ex.A-2-Attested Copy of altered First Information Report; Ex.A-4 accident Report from M.V.
Inspector, Tadepalligudem; and Ex.A-5 attested copy of the Charge Sheet.
13. So, the evidence spoken by P.W.1/injured is sufficient to hold that the petitioner is one of the passengers travelled in the said auto at the time of the accident.
14. As per Ex.A-5-Attested copy of Charge Sheet go to show that that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
High Tech Bus bearing No.AP 16 TC 3737 driven by the 1st respondent, due to which the petitioner sustained injuries. Ex.A-4-M.V.I. Report also shows that there are no any mechanical defects of the said Bus. After the investigation, the 1st respondent was charge-sheeted as per Ex.A-5 for the offences under Sections 337 and 338 and 304-A of IPC.
15. Therefore, the oral and documentary evidence let in by the petitioner goes to show that the 1st respondent drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and if he took a little bit of care and caution, the accident ought not to have been occurred. Further, to disprove the contention of the petitioner/P.W.1, the respondent No.1 did not appear before the Court and set exparte. The 6th respondent only contested the petition by filing Written Statement which is not sufficient to deny the averments in the petition why because, the 6th respondent/insurance company is not an eyewitness to the accident in question.
6 M.V.O.P.No. 741 of 2016. II A.D.J., Dt.31.12.2018. W.G., Eluru.
16. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent in driving the offending vehicle, as a result, the petitioner/P.W.1 sustained injuries and was hospitalized. Furthermore, in the said accident, the mother of the petitioner/injured/P.W.1 also died. The rash and negligent act of the 3rd respondent driver of the Auto is not established though the petitioner attributed rash and negligent act of the driver of the Auto. The 2nd respondent is the owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle by the time of the accident. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
17. ISSUE No.ii :- Once the petitioner established about the rash and negligent act of the 1st respondent in causing the accident and thereby he sustained the injuries, the question of entitlement of compensation and the quantum of compensation arises.
18. It is the case of the petitioner that due to the accident, she is unable to talk, walk, stand, right hand, right leg has not been functioning and she affected with paralysis. It is her further case that she was bedridden till her death and she sustained permanent disability till her life and her life is in miserable position and suffering from starvation. The petitioner/injured underwent treatment as inpatient in various hospitals, spent huge amount toward tests, medicines, operations, treatment and other necessaries and lost her source of income as News Rader in Siti
Cable, Tadepalligudem, besides tailoring work.
19. To prove the injuries sustained by her, the petitioner also examined the doctors as P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5.
20. P.W.2 is Dr. A.V.R. Mohan. He testified to the effect that he is working as Medical Superintendent and Civil Surgeon Orthopedic, 7 M.V.O.P.No. 741 of 2016. II A.D.J., Dt.31.12.2018. W.G., Eluru.
Government Hospital, Eluru. According to him on 04.11.2016, he examined the petitioner/P.W.1 along with other members of Medical Board and issued Ex.A-6 disability Certificate asserting her disability @ 75%. The disability was due to right hemi paresis, which is a permanent in nature. It is due to said disability the right arm of the body is unable to function fully and the petitioner is unable to lift heavy weights. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that P.W.1 is only suffering with neurological problem and the
Neurologist can only certify the disability of the petitioner and denied that the percentage of the disability is exorbitant.
21. P.W.4 is another doctor V.Ravi Kanth, Neurosurgeon,
Vijayawada. He deposed that on 20.04.2016 the petitioner was admitted in Manipal Hospital, Vijayawada, with the following injuries:-
i) Severe head injury, which diffuse axonal injury; ii) Fracture mandible; iii) Fracture maxilla; iv) Abrasion over left frontal one day; and
v) Laceration over right region elbow one day.
22. Out of the above five injuries, three are grievous and remaining two are simple injuries. P.W.4 further deposed that by the time of admitting in their hospital, the petitioner was in coma stage for a period of two and half months. She was managed in ICU on ventilator, she underwent tracheotomy and after that, she was gradually weaned off from the ventilator. Even after the treatment, the petitioner suffered with weakness for the right upper and lower limb.
23. P.W.4 further deposed that due to head injury, there is slurring of speech and on 07.07.2016, the patient was discharged. By the time of discharge, the petitioner was partially conscious and one has to attend her 8 M.V.O.P.No. 741 of 2016. II A.D.J., Dt.31.12.2018. W.G., Eluru.
to attend her day-to-day personal activities. The injuries and Discharge
Summary are correspond to Ex.A-6 Disability Certificate. The Wound
Certificate shown to him issued by their hospital, which is marked as Ex.A-
12. Ex.A-7 are the bills and prescriptions issued by their hospital. Ex.A-11 is the Pharmacy Bills and advance bills issued by their hospital. Ex.A-3 also issued by their hospital. Ex.A-8 X-rays are advised by their hospital and the petitioner was in regular follow up treatment. Ex.X-1 is the Case
Sheet of the petitioner. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that there is no record to show that the petitioner subsequently visited him for follow up treatment. During the time of the discharge of the petitioner, P.W.4 observed that her right lower and upper limbs are weak for functioning.
24. P.W.5 is another doctor V.Venkata Rao, working as R.M.O., in
Vyshnavi Hospitals, Tadepalligudem. He testified to the effect that on 07.07.2016 the petitioner admitted in their hospital with post head injury, by the time of her admission, she was in semi conscious and drowsy and also with general weakness. They applied to the petitioner for fluids and continued the old treatment and on 09.07.2016 the petitioner was discharged by their hospital and again on 31.07.2016 again, she was admitted in their hospital with the above complaint and she also underwent her previous treatment and discharged from the hospital on 03.08.2016. Ex.A-9 are two discharge summaries and Ex.A-7 is the medical bills issued by their hospital.
25. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation. The petitioner claimed compensation for Rs.50.00 Lakhs as per the column No.25 the petition from various heads.
26. Now, coming to the compensation claimed under the head of partial loss of earnings. Under this head the petitioner is claiming 9 M.V.O.P.No. 741 of 2016. II A.D.J., Dt.31.12.2018. W.G., Eluru.
Rs.1,00,000/-. It is submitted by the petitioner/P.W.1 that by the time of the accident, the petitioner working as newsreader in TCC New Channel at
Tadepalligudem and in support of her contention, she relied upon the positive photographs along with Pen Drive. Further, the petitioner was in coma for a period of four months, due to head injury she is suffering with
Semi paralysis. This Tribunal perused the positive photographs produced by the petitioner. Since, there is no serious contention put forth by the 6th respondent about the avocation of the petitioner/P.W.1 at the time of the accident except made baled allegations in the Written Statement, this
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner worked as newsreader in Siti News Channel, Tadepalligudem.
27. It is the further contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that apart from the Newsreader, the petitioner also did tailoring work and thereby earning Rs.10,000/- per month and with that earnings she used to maintain his family and due to the tragic accident, the petitioner is unable to attend the said works and confined to bed. The petitioner also relied upon the evidence of P.W.3-I Venkata Lakshmi. She testified that she is a resident of Tadepalligudem and she is a homemaker.
She knows P.W.1 who worked as tailor and newsreader in Siti Cable at
Tadepalligudem. However, P.W.3 cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the 6th respondent, nothing is elicited to discard her evidence. The learned Counsel for the 6th respondent cross-examined P.W.1 with regard to qualification in tailoring work, underwent training in reading the news in the local T.V., filing of appointment letter, monthly salary of the news reader in local T.V. Since there is no solid proof in respect of the monthly salary of the petitioner/P.W.1 as news reader, besides tailoring work, this 10 M.V.O.P.No. 741 of 2016. II A.D.J., Dt.31.12.2018. W.G., Eluru.
Tribunal, fixed the notional income of the petitioner/P.W.1 @ Rs.7,000/- per month.
28. As per the evidence of P.W.1 and the doctors, the petitioner sustained multiple and grievous injuries, went coma for a period of two and half months, underwent several operations as inpatient more than four months and odd, if the income fixed by this Tribunal is taken into consideration, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.50,000/- under the head of partial loss of earnings which is just and reasonable.
29. Now, coming to the compensation claimed under the head of damages to clothing and articles. Under this head the petitioner is claiming Rs.2,000/-. Therefore, this Tribunal is awarded Rs.2,000/- under this head which is just and reasonable.
30. Now coming to the compensation claimed under the head of
Medical Expenses. Under this head, the petitioner is claiming Rs.14.00
Lakhs. The petitioner relied upon Ex.A-7 bunch of medical bills, Ex.A-10 medical reports and Ex.A-11 Pharmacy Bills and advanced bills. Therefore, as per Ex.A-7 the petitioner is entitled for Rs.10,02,150/- towards medical expenses, for which this Tribunal grants the same.
31. Now coming to the compensation claimed under the head of attendant charges. Under this head, the petitioner is claiming compensation at Rs.1,00,000/-.
32. In 2011 ACJ 2168 (S.C.) the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case between Pola Bhadramma Vs. G.Kumar relied upon by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner has observed at Para-30 that :
“Awarding of nursing and attendant charges at home becomes necessary in cases of paralysis, coma or paraplegia.
Even where a family members like husband or wife, brother or sister or near relative attends to injured after discharge 11 M.V.O.P.No. 741 of 2016. II A.D.J., Dt.31.12.2018. W.G., Eluru.
from the hospital, the claimant can recover expenses for the value of services rendered by such relative. The appellant is a lady. She can neither speak nor take care of herself. She constantly requires nursing services. She also requires presence of a nurse most of the day…..”
33. In the present case on hand, as per the evidence of doctors referred to above, the injured/P.W.1 treated as inpatient for a period of more than five months, as per the evidence of doctor P.W.4 by the time of discharge, the petitioner was partially conscious and one has to attend her day-to-day personal activities, the petitioner was advised to follow up treatment, during the course of her treatment and after her treatment, somebody might have attended on her as she is unable to wear her Sari due to non-functioning of right hand and she needs lady assistant in her activities and thereby the compensation claimed by the petitioner under this head is just and reasonable, hence, this Tribunal grants
Rs.1,00,000/- under this head.
34. Now, coming to the compensation claimed under the head of nutrition and other expenses. Under this head, the petitioner is claiming compensation of Rs.98,000/-. Since the petitioner sustained multiple and grievous injuries more particularly injury to her head, which injury causes semi paralytic condition to her, rich nutrition food is required for her health condition. So, this Tribunal grants Rs.75,000/- under this head.
35. Now, coming to the compensation claimed under the head of future medical expenses. Under this head, the petitioner is claiming compensation of Rs.5.00 Lakhs. As already discussed, the petitioner is required follow up treatment as per the advise of the doctor, due to the head injury sustained by the petitioner, there was slurring of speech, even after treatment, the petitioner is suffering with weakness for the 12 M.V.O.P.No. 741 of 2016. II A.D.J., Dt.31.12.2018. W.G., Eluru.
right upper and lower limb as per the evidence of doctor, certainly, she might have spent some amount towards future medical treatment.
Further, now a day, the medical expenses even for tablets, which cost is very higher. This Tribunal observed the pity condition of the petitioner who is a disabled person, requires constant medical treatment for her prolonged disablement.
36. In 2011 ACJ 2168 (S.C.) referred to above, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed at Para-26 that:
“At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in a greater distress, vis-à-vis a family in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the felling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity.”
At Para-35 it is observed that : In Nizam Institute of
Medical Sciences, 2010 ACJ 38 (S.C.), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed that, ‘the expenditure that the complainant incurred and is likely to incur in the future and the possibility of the injured recovering is bleak, matters cannot be taken care of under the multiplier method. In Nizam Institute of
Medical Sciences (supra), the Apex Court awarded lump sum amount of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for future medical expenses. That was a case where the injured became paraplegic and was aged about 30 years on the date of the Award….” 13 M.V.O.P.No. 741 of 2016. II A.D.J., Dt.31.12.2018. W.G., Eluru.
37. The facts of the above case are squarely applicable to the present case on hand. Since, the petitioner became paralyzed, her she requires permanent treatment, for which, she requires the huge amount to meet medical expenses. So, this Tribunal grants Rs.2,50,000/- under this head considering the present day medicine costs.
38. Now, coming to the compensation claimed under the head of pain and suffering and mental agony. Under this head, the petitioner is claiming compensation at Rs.4,00,000/-.
39. In 2011 ACJ 2168 (S.C.) referred to above, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed at Para-12 that:
“Question often arises when the Court considers the Award of non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering. When the injured person is unconscious form the date of accident or in coma or in a vegetative state whether amounts can be awarded for pain and suffering. In K.Sapana, 1988 ACJ 113 (A.P), this Court elucidated as to what is pain and suffering.
In P.Satyanarayana Vs. I Babu Rajendra Prasad, 1988 ACJ 88 (A.P), this Court dealt with quantum to be awarded towards pain and suffering depending on the decided cases. Whether a person, who went into coma or became unconscious from the moment accident, occurred, can be awarded compensation for pain and suffering? Such a person, needless to mention, would not suffer any pain and even if pain is experienced at the moment of impact due to accident, it is not possible to assess the same….. We also agree with the view in
P.Satyanarayana (supra) that monetary compensation has to be awarded for pain and suffering even in cases of unconscious claimants…..”
40. In the present case on hand, the petitioner sustained head injury, went coma for a period of three months and struggled for life.
Ex.A-3 is the Discharge Summary issued by Manipal Hospitals, Ex.A-9 14 M.V.O.P.No. 741 of 2016. II A.D.J., Dt.31.12.2018. W.G., Eluru.
Discharge Summaries two issued by Vaishnavi Hospital, Ex.A-8 X-rays shows that the petitioner sustained multiple and grievous injuries, confined to bed and somebody might have to attend on her for lifelong.
So, the petitioner suffered a lot for pain and suffering besides mental agony, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- under this head which is just and reasonable.
41. Now coming to the compensation claimed under the heads of loss of expectation of life and loss of service of children and husband.
Under the above heads, the petitioner is claiming Rs.2.00 Lakhs each.
42. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision reported in 2011 ACJ 2168 in the Court of the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in a case between Pola Bhadramma Vs. G.Kumar and another wherein it is held by Their Lordships that :
“Quantum – Injury – Principles of assessment – Services rendered by family members – Injured lady has become a vegetative living being – She can neither speak nor take care of herself – After discharge form hospital, some family members or near relatives has to attend to her – Whether the injured can recover expenses for value of services rendered by such relatives – Held : Yes”.
43. In the above case, the Hon’ble High Court while granting compensation on various, granted Rs.3.00 Lakhs for loss of expectation of life, Rs.4,68,000/ for loss of notional income being value of her services as house wife, Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for injuries, Rs.2,29,400/- for nutritious diet, Rs.15.00 Lakhs for future medical expenses and surgical items etc. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged this Tribunal to take the above rate of compensation while awarding the compensation under the appropriate heads.
15 M.V.O.P.No. 741 of 2016. II A.D.J., Dt.31.12.2018. W.G., Eluru.
44. So, with great respect to the above decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Tribunal inclined to grant
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of expectation of life and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of service of children and husband.
45. Now coming to the compensation claimed under the head of permanent disability. Under this head, the petitioner is claiming Rs.20.00
Lakhs. As per the evidence of P.W.2 doctor, the petitioner/injured sustained disability @ 75% which is a permanent one. The evidence of
P.W.2 also supported the other corresponding medical record and the evidence of other doctors examined as P.Ws.4 and 5 referred to above.
46. Coming to the compensation claimed for continuing or permanent disability. Under this head, the petitioner is claiming compensation at Rs.20.00 Lakhs. As discussed earlier, the injured/P.W.1 sustained three fractures and two simple injuries and thereby sustained disability @ 75%, which is a permanent one and cannot perform her duties as usual.
47. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon another decision reported in 2018 ACJ 5 (S.C.) in a case between Hem Raj Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others wherein Their
Lordships held that:
“Quantum – Fatal Accident – Principles of assessment – Future prospects – Tribunal allowed compensation adding component of future prospects higher than the standard percentage on the basis of evidence but High Court held that Tribunal could not have gone beyond the standard percentage – Whether higher percentage of addition for future prospects than the standard percentage as fixed in Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (S.C), is permissible where satisfactory evidence is available –
Held : Yes; Tribunal order restored.” 16 M.V.O.P.No. 741 of 2016. II A.D.J., Dt.31.12.2018. W.G., Eluru.
48. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon another decision reported in 2014 ACJ 1441 (S.C.) in a case between M.Mekala
Vs. M.Malathi and another in the context of adding of 50 per cent for future prospects in respect of disabled persons.
49. As discussed earlier, due to the accident, her future career will be in dilemma being a newsreader of local news channel, apart from dutiful homemaker to serve the children and husband. The positive photographs relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner shows that the petitioner is a pretty woman. Therefore, her future expectations in her profession as newsreader cannot be ruled out. If the petitioner would become a good newsreader, her future opportunities cannot be estimated. But, due to the said accident, the profession and life of the petitioner became ruin. Furthermore, in the tragic accident, the petitioner also lost her mother, due to head injury, there is slurring of speech, she lost her opportunities as newsreader, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. So, this Tribunal inclined to add 50% towards future prospects while calculating the disability sustained by the petitioner.
50. In the petition, the age of the petitioner shown as 30 years. In the medical records relied upon by the petitioner, the age of the petitioner shown as 30 years. Therefore, this Tribunal is inclined to take the age of the petitioner between the age group of 31 to 35 by the time of the accident. So, for the age group of 31–35 years the multiplier of 16 is taken into consideration as per the decision reported in Trilok Chandra’s
Case 1996 ACJ 831 (S.C). As already discussed, the monthly income of the petitioner is taken into consideration as Rs.7,000/- Plus future prospects @ 50% which comes to Rs.3,500/- = Rs.10,500/- (Rs.10,500/- x 12 x 16 x 75/100 = 15,12,000/-). Hence, under the head of permanent 17 M.V.O.P.No. 741 of 2016. II A.D.J., Dt.31.12.2018. W.G., Eluru.
disability and loss future prospectus Rs.15,12,000/- is awarded by this
Tribunal.
51. Now, coming to the liability of the respondents. The 1st respondent is the driver, 2nd respondent is the owner and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the Bus. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that at the time of the accident, the insurance policy issued to the Bus was in force.
52. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the 6th respondent that the 1st and 4th respondents are not having any valid licence to drive the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident. But the 6th respondent failed to prove the said contention. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
53. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation from the respondents 1 to 3 under the following heads:
Sl.No. Name of the head under which Amount awarded in compensation is granted. Rs.
1. Partial loss of earnings 50,000-00
2. Damages to clothing and articles 2,000-00
3. Medical Expenses 10,02,150-00
4. Attendant charges 1,00,000-00
5. Nutrition and other expenses 75,000-00
6. Future Medical expenses 2,50,000-00
7. Pan and suffering and mental agony 2,00,000-00
8. Loss of expectation of life 1,00,000-00
9. Loss of service of her children and husband 1,00,000-00
10. Loss of permanent disability 15,12,000-00
TOTAL : Rs. 33,91,150-00
54. ISSUE No.iii:
IN THE RESULT , the Petition is allowed in part, by awarding compensation of Rs.33,91,150/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Ninety One
Thousand One Hundred and Fifty only) to the petitioner with interest at 18 M.V.O.P.No. 741 of 2016. II A.D.J., Dt.31.12.2018. W.G., Eluru.
7.5% p.a. simple from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization.
Liability: The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay entire compensation. However, the 3rd respondent shall pay the awarded amount to the claimant in view of insurance policy.
The claim made against the respondents 4 to 6 is hereby dismissed without costs.
Disbursement:- The petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) with total interest and costs and the remaining compensation amount shall be kept in any
Nationalized Bank for a period of two years.
Time for deposit: 30 (Thirty) days time is granted for deposit.
Advocate Fee: Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand only).
The rest of the claim made by the petitioner is dismissed without costs.
Since the Court Fee exempted on the compensation amount claimed, the petitioner is directed to pay the Court Fee on the compensation amount awarded by this Tribunal and she is entitled for copy of decree on clearance of Court fee dues, if any and the office is directed to verify with regard to payment of Court Fee and exemption, if any, sought while supplying the copy of decree.
Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 31 st day of December 2018.
CHAIRMAN,
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-
I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.
FAC/ MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.
19 M.V.O.P.No. 741 of 2016. II A.D.J., Dt.31.12.2018. W.G., Eluru.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS:
P.W.1 N.G.Naga Lakshmi. -NONE -
P.W.2 Dr.A.V.R.Mohan.
P.W.3 I.Venkata Lakshmi.
P.W.4 Dr.V.Ravi Kanth.
P.W.5 Dr.V.Venkata Rao.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PETITIONER:
Ex.A-1 -- Attested copy of First Information Report.
Ex.A-2 -- Attested copy of altered First Information Report.
Ex.A-3 -- Discharge Summary.
Ex.A-4 -- Attested copy of accident report from M.V. Inspector.
Ex.A-5 -- Attested copy of Charge Sheet.
Ex.A-6 -- Disability Certificate.
Ex.A-7 -- Prescriptions and Bunch of Medical Bills.
Ex.A-8 -- X-Rays.
Ex.A-9 -- Discharge Summaries.
Ex.A-10 -- Medical Reports.
Ex.A-11 -- Pharmacy bills and advanced bills.
Ex.A-12 -- Wound Certificate.
FOR RESPONDENTS: -
Ex.B-1 -- Insurance Policy.
THROUGH WITNESS:-
Ex.x-1 -- Case Sheet.
CHAIRMAN (M.A.C.T.)
Cum-I.A.D.J.,
W.G., ELURU.
FAC/M.A.C.T. –cum II A.D.J.,
W.G., ELURU.
20 M.V.O.P.No. 741 of 2016. II A.D.J., Dt.31.12.2018. W.G., Eluru.