Smt. J. Sri Lakshmi

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CUM IV ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE : EAST GODAVARI : KAKINADA.

Present: Smt. J. Srilakshmi,

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum

IV Addl. District Judge.

Monday, the 15 th day of February, 2016

M.V.O.P.No. 213 of 2013

Between:

P. Suvarna Pushpa.. Petitioner

A n d

1. Dharmavarapu Krishna

2. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation.. Respondents

This petition coming before me for final hearing on 25.1.2016 in the presence of Sri Y. Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri A. Venkatesh, Advocate for the 2ndrespondent and 1strespondent set exparte and on hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This petition is filed by the petitioner U/s.166 of M.V. Act R/W. Rules 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.10,59,350/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the motor accident with interest at 18% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of realization.

2.The petitioner is permanent resident of G. Medapadu and she is working as Fashion Designer. She is aged about 34 years. She was hale and healthy prior to and as on the date of the accident.

On 28.1.2013 at about 12 noon while the petitioner was coming along with her father-in-law by name Palakurthi Venkata Govindacharyulu in his TATA

Indica Car bearing No. AP 05 AN 7685 from Kakinada to G. Medapadu village and 2 when they reached near 6/20 mile stone G. Medapadu at about 12 noon the driver of APS RTC bus bearing registration No. AP 11 Z 0355 drove the bus in rash and negligent manner from Biccavolu side came in opposite direction to Samalkot side and dashed the Tata Indica Car. As a result of the accident petitioner’s father-in- law died on the spot instantaneously and the petitioner sustained fracture and bleeding injuries. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Apollo Hospital,

Kakinada for treatment where she was treated for one day and on the next day, the petitioner was shifted in Ambulance to Krishna Institute of Medical Science,

Hyderabad where major operation was performed to the left elbow and right knee joint but the fractures are not completely healed (not united). The doctors who conducted the operation expressed opinion that another major operation is required to be done for healing the fractures. The medical expenditure of Apollo Hospital and

Krishna Institute of medical Sciences, Hyderabad are shown in a statement attached to the petition. Since the time of accident she could not attend her normal duties and she has been in wheel chair till now and one attendant was appointed to attend the petitioner since the petitioner is in bed from the date of accident till today by paying Rs.5,000/- per month as salary to her.

The S.H.O., Samalkot Police Station registered a case in Cr. No.

27/2013 under Sections 304-A and 338 I.P.C.

respondent is the driver of the RTC Bus and 2ndrespondent is The 1st owner and they are liable for the accident. The petitioner claiming compensation of

Rs.10,59,000/- from R1 and R2 jointly and severally. Hence the petition.

The 1strespondent remained exparte. The 2nd

3.respondent filed its counter stating that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under law and the material allegations stated in the petition are all not correctly 3 stated and made for the purpose of getting more compensation from this respondent.

This respondent admitted that the bus No. AP 11 Z 0355 belongs to the 2ndrespondent and the 1strespondent was the driver on the date of alleged accident. On the date of alleged accident i.e., on 28-1-2013 the bus was running in between Ramachandrapuram to Pithapuram. When the bus reached near

Medapadu Rail Gate the driver of the bus over took the lorry a head to him and while maintaining the bus towards left side of the road a Tata Indica Car with high speed came opposite to the bus and due to the bad condition of the road the driver of the car could not control the car and hit the bus on its right front portion. At that time the bus is almost in a stationed position and the driver of the bus driving the vehicle very slowly and cautiously. The person who is driving the car is driving the vehicle with high speed and rash and negligently. When he suddenly observed the bus on his opposite, he was confused and dashed the bus by lost control. Due to the accident the driver of the car died and the passengers in it sustained minor injuries. There is no fault or negligence on the part of the 1strespondent driver of the bus.

This respondent denied the earning capacity of the petitioner. The compensation claimed by her is highly speculative and she is not entitled to claim any interest much at the rate as claimed in the petition. The petitioner is not entitled for the various amounts claimed under various heads of Column 23 of the petition. There are no merits in the petition and hence it is liable to be dismissed in limini.

4.Basing on the strength of the pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial :

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APS RTC bus bearing Registration No. AP 11/Z-0355 by R1, resulting in injuries to the petitioner?

4

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

5.In the trial afforded to both parties, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the petitioner and marked Exs.A1 to A25 and EXs.X1 to X.6 on its behalf. On behalf of the respondents, neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents marked.

6.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material available on record.

7.Issue No. 1 :

It is being a petition filed U/s.166 M.V. Act, it is incumbent on the petitioner to establish the identity of the offending vehicle and sustaining injuries in the accident and the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The petitioner was examined herself as P.W.1 and filed her chief examination affidavit by reiterating the petition contents in her chief examination affidavit. To support her contention, she filed Exs.A1 to A25 documents. They are

Ex.A1 is the certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr. No. 27/2013 of SHO., Samalkot. Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of M.V.I. Report. Ex.A-3 is the certified copy of Charge sheet.

Ex.A-4 is the certified copy of wound certificate. Ex.A-5 is the Diagnosis and discharge summary issued by Apollo hospital, Kakinada dt. 29.1.2103. Ex.A-6 is the three receipts issued by Rotary Blood Bank. Ex.A-7 is the bill for medicines issued by Apollo hospital for Rs.335.12ps. Ex.A-8 is the bill issued by Apollo hospital,

Kakinada for treatment given to the petitioner as Rs. 22,474/-. Ex.A-9 is the receipt issued by Ambulance by Sri Vijaya Taxi Services and Ambulance. Ex.A-10 is the discharge summary issued by KIMS, Secunderabad. Ex.A-11 is the bill and prescription issued by KIMS, Secunderabad for an amount Rs. 2,68,350/-. Ex.A-12 is the Pharmacy receipt issued by KIMS for Rs. 3,013.50ps. Ex.A-13 is the bills 5 issued by Amar India Surgical Company for Wheel Chair and commode chair for Rs.

9,500/-. Ex.A-14 is the receipt issued by Vijaya Tax Service and Ambulance service for Rs. 20,000/-. Ex.A-15 is the two receipts issued by Medicity Health Care for Rs.

350/- and Rs. 320/-. Ex.A-16 is the receipt issued by Vianayaka Taxi owners and cultural Association for Rs. 14,000/-. Ex.A-17 is the two receipts issued by Medicity

Health care for Rs. 480/- and Rs. 300/-. Ex.A-18 is the receipt issued by Sri

Vinayaka Taxi owners and Workers Cultural Association for an amount of Rs.

13,200/-. Ex.A-19 is two medical bills of Medicity Health care for Rs. 480/- and Rs.

300/-. Ex.A-20 is the receipt issued by Vinayaka Taxi Owners and workers Cultural

Association for Rs. 13,000/-. Ex.A-21 is the two receipts issued by Medicity Health

Care, Hyderabad for Rs. 660/- and Rs. 300/-. Ex.A-22 is the inpatient final bill as

Rs. 23,327-42ps. issued by Medicity Hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.A-23 is the receipt issued by Vianayaka Taxi owners and workers cultural association for Rs. 15,300/-.

Ex.A-24 is bunch of receipts issued by Arjamanthula Seetha Devi as attendant for monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- and Ex.A-25 is the bill issued by physiotherapist for an amount of Rs.20,000/-.

8.In the cross examination by R.2 counsel the petitioner deposed that she is a graduate in science. She did Fashion-Designer course but she did not file any document in support of her contention. By the time of accident, she was resided at Kakinada, at present she is residing at G. Medapadu village. She used to do the designing of blouses and sarees by engaging two workers at her house in

Kakinada. Except her oral evidence, there is no documentary proof to show that she used to do fashion designing. Even after accident, she can do the fashion designing but she cannot do efficiently due to her problem to sit on the ground and to get up. She denied the suggestion suggested to her that the accident would not cause any hurdle for her fashion designing work and her work was not suffered due to her accident.

6

She admitted that there was a lorry in front of the bus opposite to the bus. The accident was occurred while the lorry was over taking the RTC bus towards right side. She denied the suggestion suggested to her that due to the rash and negligent driving of their car driver the accident took place that not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus.

She deposed that she was admitted in the hospital on the date of accident and discharged on the next day after 24 hours observation in the hospital.

The hospital authorities informed her that there is no equipment in their hospital and asked them to shift her to KIMS, Hyderabad.

She deposed that she was admitted in KIMS hospital on 29.1.2013 at about 3.00 p.m., or 3.30 p.m. She denied the suggestion suggested to her that there is no necessity for travel her in an Ambulance on that day that she was comfortable to travel in train. She deposed that she was undergone surgery for her hands and leg at KIMS hospital. She was discharged from hospital on 5.2.2013.

On 13.2.2013 she was attended for review. She admitted that they have only suggested her strict non weight bearing walking until further advice as per Ex.A-10.

She denied the suggestion suggested to her that there is no rash and negligent driving of RTC bus driver for the accident that she is deposing falsely.

9.P.W.1 adduced documentary evidence to show that the accident is the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The accident was not denied by the respondents and the evidence of P.W.1 with the documentary evidence discloses that there was an accident and the investigating officer after thorough investigation and collection of evidence made himself sure about the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident and filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. I therefore, hold that the petitioner has established the accident and sustaining of injuries in the accident, for which P.W.1 7 filed the copy of F.I.R., copy of charge sheet and wound certificate, I therefore, answer this issue in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner.

10.Issue No. 2 :

To support the petitioner’s contention, she got examined Dr. Partha

Patim Cheterjee, who is working as Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon in Apollo

Hospital, Kakinada as P.W.2. He deposed that on 28.1.2013 the petitioner P.

Suvarna Pushpa, aged 36 years was admitted into hospital and as per the wound certificate issued from Casualty Medical officer of their hospital, the patient had the following injuries:

1)Lacerated wound over right thigh about 2 x 2 cms.

2)Compound comminuted fracture of right distal femur.

3)Comminuted fracture proximal ulna with radial head dislocation.

He opined that the injury numbers 2 and 3 are grievous in nature and

Ex.A.4 is the wound certificate. Patient was taken for procedure under sedition in operation theater and following procedures were done.

1)Debridement and re-positioning of protruded part of femur wound closure.

2)Closed reduction and POP slab application for elbow injury. ‘

X-ray chest was done and as per report patient had fractures in 6thto 9thribs on left side. The original case sheet pertaining to the patient treatment with total hundred and sixteen pages is produced before the court and it is marked as

Ex.X-1. The bunch of X-rays ( 5 in numbers) relating to this patient is marked as

Ex.X.2. C.T. Scan brain film (1 in number) relating to the patient is marked as

Ex.X-3. Ex.A.8 was issued by their hospital authorities to the petitioner at the time of her discharge. The patient has not come to him after discharge from his hospital. He deposed that entire treatment cost was paid.

8

11.In the cross-examination by R.2 counsel he admitted that the patient was discharged from the hospital on the next day after admission. He admitted that patient was discharged against medical advice. It is possible to get some amount of further tissue trauma due to movement when such patients are transported to long distances.

12. To support the petitioner’s contention, she got examined Dr. K.

Krishnaiah who is working as Orthopedic Surgeon in KIMS Hospitalsas P.W.2.

He deposed that on 29.1.2013 he had admitted a patient by name Suvarna Pushpa, aged 34 years. She was initially admitted in a local hospital at Kakinada following the accident on 28.1.2013. Upon admission general condition was satisfactory, but he had noticed the following injuries:

1) A multi fragmented fracture of right thigh bone near the joint.

2) Multi fragmented fracture of left fore-arm with shattered elbow joint.

3) An open wound of about 8 cms. length in right thigh.

4) Fracture of left patella (knee cap)

5) Fractured 5,6,7 and 8 rib bones on the right side.

After stabilizing the patient condition, patient underwent operations on left forearm wherein the broken bone was fixed with plate and screws and the dislocated elbow joint was reduced. Another operation was conducted on the right thigh bone wherein a long plate was used to fix the broken bone. Both operations were conducted on 30.1.2013. She was given physiotherapy and medication and finally discharged on 5.2.2013. She was followed in the outpatient department regularly and physiotherapy was performed. Due to fracture of right thigh and fracture of left arm patient had to be in bed and wheel chair for nearly two months.

During this time the patient had to depend very much on others including family members for her daily activities like eating, clothing, bathing etc. She also suffered with a great deal of pain and emotional imbalance due to the seriousness of 9 fractures and therefore needed counseling and support by the family. Although the surgery has yielded satisfactory result in view of the complexity and seriousness of fractures her moments in elbow joint and knee joint were restricted and limited.

The elbow joint re-dislocated during the course of treatment. However, after carefully evaluating the situation it was decided to leave it as it is.

He further deposed that as the metallic plates were come in the way of moment of her elbow joint, she was admitted to Medicity Hospital for convenience on 5.3.2014 when the screws and plates were removed. As he worked both in

KIMS and Medicity Hospital for the sake of cost and convenience, he performed this operation as one day case admission. She subsequently followed in the O.P.

department with regular exercises and physiotherapy. After the fracture in the thigh bone has healed, it was decided to remove the metallic plate. Subsequently she was admitted on 2.9.2015 for removal of plate at KIMS. Due to complexity and bone growth over the plate the metals could not be removed and therefore decided to leave inside as any serious attempts could endanger a fracture.

He further deposed that he had reviewed her recently and noted the fracture in the thigh bone has healed satisfactorily. Except, some pain on occasionally she has no major problem in walking. However, her left elbow has restricted moments causing inconvenience frequently. There is also a large visible scar over the fore arm. He deposed that Ex.X.4 is the case sheet of KIMS. Ex.X.5 is the case sheet of Medicity. Ex.X.6 is the latter case sheet of KIMS. EXs. A.11 and

A.12 are the bills issued by KIMS. EXs. A.15, 17,19, 21 and 22 are relating to

Medicity hospital. Ex.A.10 was issued by KIMS. He deposed that she may require surgery for her elbow joint in the form of removing part of the dislocated bone.

She also may require surgery in thigh to remove the plate if it gives problems.

13.In the cross-examination by R.2 counsel he admitted that as per Ex.A.4 there are two injuries. Tailoring does not require normally functioning 10 limbs. Person with gross disability can also do tailoring. He had seen the patient recently and confirmed that she had dislocated Radial head in her elbow joint. He admitted that the hospital does not keep the outpatient record to support that however his mere memory says that she attended as outpatient at KIMS several times.

14.The petitioner proved the case by filing oral and documentary evidence and the 2ndrespondent though filed its counter before the Court, he did not step into the witness box to depose evidence by supporting his contentions raised in his counter. In those circumstances, R.1 and R.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. This point is answered accordingly.

15. POINT No.3:

Coming to the quantum of compensation, the petitioner claimed compensation amount of Rs.10,59,350/- under several heads. Compensation for partial loss of earnings and loss of earnings she claimed Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner did not file any documentary proof to show that she is doing fashion designer work by engaging two workers. The petitioner did not file her income proof nor maintaining accounts for her business nor the particulars of payments of wages to the workers. The petitioner if she is having qualification of fashion designing she must underwent some course for her fashion designing course, but she did not file any document in support of her contention though she did fashion designer course. Therefore, under this head she is not entitled the compensation by presuming that she is having loss of earnings under her profession. Compensation for transport to hospital i.e., Apollo Hospital, Kakinada and Hyderabad the petitioner claimed Rs.40,000/-, for which she is entitled for Rs.40,000/- as she filed EXs. A.9, A.16, A.18, A.20 and A.23. The petitioner claimed Rs.30,000/- for medical expenses at Apollo hospital, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.335.12ps. and

Rs.22,474/- under EXs. A.7 and A.8. The Medical Officer who examined as P.W.2 11 has also categorically deposed that the patient was treated in their hospital and they issued Ex.A.8 to the petitioner at the time of her discharge, as such, the amount claimed by the petitioner under EXs. A.7 and A.8 are entitled by her as the entire treatment cost was paid by her. She is entitled for Rs.22,809/- under this head. The petitioner claimed Rs.2,69,350/-for medical expenses at Krishna

Institute of Medical Sciences and the petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,69,350/- as per

Ex.A.11. The petitioner also paid an amount of Rs.3,013.50ps. under Ex.A.12. The

Ex.A.15, A.17, A.19, A.21 and A.22 are related to Medicity Hospital, for which the petitioner did not prove by examiningthe witness. The petitioner claimed

Rs.2,00,000/- for future medical expenses as per the opinion of doctors at

Hyderabad, but she did not file any written estimation of the doctors for future medical expenses, hence, the same is rejected. The petitioner claimed Rs.20,000/- for attendant charges but she did not examine the person who received the attendant charges from the petitioner under Ex.A.24 cash receipts. As such, the attendant charges are not allotted to the petitioner under this head. The petitioner claimed Rs.50,000/- for mental agony for which she is entitled for Rs.20,000/-as she suffered for a considerable days with grievous injuries and underwent mental agony. The petitioner claimed Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering for which she is entitled for Rs.50,000/-as she received grievous injuries and undergone operation. The petitioner claimed Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of disability of work, for which there is no evidence on record. The Medical Officers who are examined on behalf of the petitioner categorically deposed in their cross-examination that tailoring does not require normally functioning limbs. Person with gross disability can also do tailoring. As such, the petitioner is not entitled the amount under this head. Compensation for loss of earning power the petitioner claimed Rs.1,00,000/-.

The amount for loss of earnings as already stated above in supra that she is not entitled for loss of earnings and as such, she is not entitled for any compensation under this head, hence, it is rejected. So, a sum of Rs.4,05,172.62ps. rounded to 12

Rs.4,06,300/- is granted as compensation under the above heads to the petitioner.

The respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay the total compensation of Rs.4,06,000/- to the petitioner. This point is answered accordingly in favour of petitioner.

16.Issue No. 3 : In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs granting compensation of Rs.4,06,000/-directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the said amount with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till date of realization. The rest of the petition claim is dismissed without costs. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of this judgment.The petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and kept the remaining balance under fixed deposit for a period of one year in any nationalized bank. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 15thday of February, 2016.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

CUM IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

KAKINADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PETITIONER:

P.W.1 : P. Suvarna Pushpa

P.W.2 : Dr. P.P. Cheterjee

P.W.3 : Dr. K. Krishnaiah

FOR RESPONDENTS : None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.A-1 : Certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr. No. 27/2013 of SHO., Samalkot.

13

Ex.A-2 : Certified copy of M.V.I. Report.

Ex.A-3 : Certified copy of Charge sheet.

Ex.A-4 : Certified copy of wound certificate.

Ex.A-5 : Diagnosis and discharge summary issued by Apollo hospital, Kakinada dt. 29.1.2103.

Ex.A-6 : Three receipts issued by Rotary Blood Bank.

Ex.A-7 : Bill for medicines issued by Apollo hospital for Rs.335.12ps.

Ex.A-8 : Bill issued by Apollo hospital, Kakinada for treatment given to the petitioner as Rs. 22,474/-.

Ex.A-9 : Receipt issued by Ambulance by Sri Vijaya Taxi Services and Ambulance.

Ex.A-10 : Discharge summary issued by KIMS, Secunderabad.

Ex.A-11 : Bill and prescription issued by KIMS, Secunderabad for an amount Rs. 2,68,350/-.

Ex.A-12 : Pharmacy receipt issued by KIMS for Rs. 3,013.50ps.

Ex.A-13 : Bills issued by Amar India Surgical Company for Wheel Chair and commode chair for Rs. 9,500/-.

Ex.A-14 : Receipt issued by Vijaya Tax Service and Ambulance service for Rs.20,000/-.

Ex.A-15 : Two receipts issued by Medicity Health Care for Rs. 350/- and Rs. 320/-.

Ex.A-16 : Receipt issued by Vianayaka Taxi owners and Cultural Association for Rs.14,000/-.

Ex.A-17 : Two receipts issued by Medicity Health care for Rs. 480/- and Rs. 300/-.

Ex.A-18 : Receipt issued by Sri Vinayaka Taxi Owners and Workers Cultural Association for an amount of Rs.13,200/-.

Ex.A-19 : Two medical bills of Medicity Health care for Rs. 480/- and Rs. 300/-.

Ex.A-20 : Receipt issued by Vinayaka Taxi Owners and workers Cultural Association for Rs. 13,000/-.

Ex.A-21 : Two receipts issued by Medicity Health Care, Hyderabad for Rs. 660/- and Rs.300/-.

Ex.A-22 : Inpatient final bill as Rs.23,327-42ps. issued by Medicity Hospital, Hyderabad.

Ex.A-23 : Receipt issued by Vianayaka Taxi owners and workers cultural association for Rs.15,300/-.

Ex.A-24 : Bunch of receipts issued by Arjamanthula Seetha Devi as attendant for 14 monthly salary of Rs.4,000/-.

Ex.A-25 : Bill issued by Physiotherapist for an amount of Rs.20,000/-.

Ex.X1 : Case sheet of Apollo Hospital, Kakinada.

Ex.X2 : X-rays five in number

Ex.X3 : C.T. Scan brain film.

Ex.X4 : Case sheet along with three X-ray films of KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad.

Ex.X5 : Case sheet of Medicity Hospital.

Ex.X6 : Latter case sheet of KIMS, Secunderabad.

FOR RESPONDENTS: Nil.

IV A.D.J.

Kakinada.

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CUM IV ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE : EAST GODAVARI : KAKINADA.

Present: Smt. J. Srilakshmi,

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum

IV Addl. District Judge.

Monday, the 15 th day of February, 2016

M.V.O.P.No. 213 of 2013

Between:

P. Suvarna Pushpa.. Petitioner

A n d

1. Dharmavarapu Krishna

2. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation.. Respondents

This petition coming before me for final hearing on 25.1.2016 in the presence of Sri Y. Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri A. Venkatesh, Advocate for the 2ndrespondent and 1strespondent set exparte and on hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This petition is filed by the petitioner U/s.166 of M.V. Act R/W. Rules 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.10,59,350/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the motor accident with interest at 18% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of realization.

2.The petitioner is permanent resident of G. Medapadu and she is working as Fashion Designer. She is aged about 34 years. She was hale and healthy prior to and as on the date of the accident.

On 28.1.2013 at about 12 noon while the petitioner was coming along with her father-in-law by name Palakurthi Venkata Govindacharyulu in his TATA

Indica Car bearing No. AP 05 AN 7685 from Kakinada to G. Medapadu village and 2 when they reached near 6/20 mile stone G. Medapadu at about 12 noon the driver of APS RTC bus bearing registration No. AP 11 Z 0355 drove the bus in rash and negligent manner from Biccavolu side came in opposite direction to Samalkot side and dashed the Tata Indica Car. As a result of the accident petitioner’s father-in- law died on the spot instantaneously and the petitioner sustained fracture and bleeding injuries. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Apollo Hospital,

Kakinada for treatment where she was treated for one day and on the next day, the petitioner was shifted in Ambulance to Krishna Institute of Medical Science,

Hyderabad where major operation was performed to the left elbow and right knee joint but the fractures are not completely healed (not united). The doctors who conducted the operation expressed opinion that another major operation is required to be done for healing the fractures. The medical expenditure of Apollo Hospital and

Krishna Institute of medical Sciences, Hyderabad are shown in a statement attached to the petition. Since the time of accident she could not attend her normal duties and she has been in wheel chair till now and one attendant was appointed to attend the petitioner since the petitioner is in bed from the date of accident till today by paying Rs.5,000/- per month as salary to her.

The S.H.O., Samalkot Police Station registered a case in Cr. No.

27/2013 under Sections 304-A and 338 I.P.C.

respondent is the driver of the RTC Bus and 2ndrespondent is The 1st owner and they are liable for the accident. The petitioner claiming compensation of

Rs.10,59,000/- from R1 and R2 jointly and severally. Hence the petition.

The 1strespondent remained exparte. The 2nd

3.respondent filed its counter stating that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under law and the material allegations stated in the petition are all not correctly 3 stated and made for the purpose of getting more compensation from this respondent.

This respondent admitted that the bus No. AP 11 Z 0355 belongs to the 2ndrespondent and the 1strespondent was the driver on the date of alleged accident. On the date of alleged accident i.e., on 28-1-2013 the bus was running in between Ramachandrapuram to Pithapuram. When the bus reached near

Medapadu Rail Gate the driver of the bus over took the lorry a head to him and while maintaining the bus towards left side of the road a Tata Indica Car with high speed came opposite to the bus and due to the bad condition of the road the driver of the car could not control the car and hit the bus on its right front portion. At that time the bus is almost in a stationed position and the driver of the bus driving the vehicle very slowly and cautiously. The person who is driving the car is driving the vehicle with high speed and rash and negligently. When he suddenly observed the bus on his opposite, he was confused and dashed the bus by lost control. Due to the accident the driver of the car died and the passengers in it sustained minor injuries. There is no fault or negligence on the part of the 1strespondent driver of the bus.

This respondent denied the earning capacity of the petitioner. The compensation claimed by her is highly speculative and she is not entitled to claim any interest much at the rate as claimed in the petition. The petitioner is not entitled for the various amounts claimed under various heads of Column 23 of the petition. There are no merits in the petition and hence it is liable to be dismissed in limini.

4.Basing on the strength of the pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial :

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APS RTC bus bearing Registration No. AP 11/Z-0355 by R1, resulting in injuries to the petitioner?

4

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

5.In the trial afforded to both parties, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the petitioner and marked Exs.A1 to A25 and EXs.X1 to X.6 on its behalf. On behalf of the respondents, neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents marked.

6.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material available on record.

7.Issue No. 1 :

It is being a petition filed U/s.166 M.V. Act, it is incumbent on the petitioner to establish the identity of the offending vehicle and sustaining injuries in the accident and the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The petitioner was examined herself as P.W.1 and filed her chief examination affidavit by reiterating the petition contents in her chief examination affidavit. To support her contention, she filed Exs.A1 to A25 documents. They are

Ex.A1 is the certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr. No. 27/2013 of SHO., Samalkot. Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of M.V.I. Report. Ex.A-3 is the certified copy of Charge sheet.

Ex.A-4 is the certified copy of wound certificate. Ex.A-5 is the Diagnosis and discharge summary issued by Apollo hospital, Kakinada dt. 29.1.2103. Ex.A-6 is the three receipts issued by Rotary Blood Bank. Ex.A-7 is the bill for medicines issued by Apollo hospital for Rs.335.12ps. Ex.A-8 is the bill issued by Apollo hospital,

Kakinada for treatment given to the petitioner as Rs. 22,474/-. Ex.A-9 is the receipt issued by Ambulance by Sri Vijaya Taxi Services and Ambulance. Ex.A-10 is the discharge summary issued by KIMS, Secunderabad. Ex.A-11 is the bill and prescription issued by KIMS, Secunderabad for an amount Rs. 2,68,350/-. Ex.A-12 is the Pharmacy receipt issued by KIMS for Rs. 3,013.50ps. Ex.A-13 is the bills 5 issued by Amar India Surgical Company for Wheel Chair and commode chair for Rs.

9,500/-. Ex.A-14 is the receipt issued by Vijaya Tax Service and Ambulance service for Rs. 20,000/-. Ex.A-15 is the two receipts issued by Medicity Health Care for Rs.

350/- and Rs. 320/-. Ex.A-16 is the receipt issued by Vianayaka Taxi owners and cultural Association for Rs. 14,000/-. Ex.A-17 is the two receipts issued by Medicity

Health care for Rs. 480/- and Rs. 300/-. Ex.A-18 is the receipt issued by Sri

Vinayaka Taxi owners and Workers Cultural Association for an amount of Rs.

13,200/-. Ex.A-19 is two medical bills of Medicity Health care for Rs. 480/- and Rs.

300/-. Ex.A-20 is the receipt issued by Vinayaka Taxi Owners and workers Cultural

Association for Rs. 13,000/-. Ex.A-21 is the two receipts issued by Medicity Health

Care, Hyderabad for Rs. 660/- and Rs. 300/-. Ex.A-22 is the inpatient final bill as

Rs. 23,327-42ps. issued by Medicity Hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.A-23 is the receipt issued by Vianayaka Taxi owners and workers cultural association for Rs. 15,300/-.

Ex.A-24 is bunch of receipts issued by Arjamanthula Seetha Devi as attendant for monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- and Ex.A-25 is the bill issued by physiotherapist for an amount of Rs.20,000/-.

8.In the cross examination by R.2 counsel the petitioner deposed that she is a graduate in science. She did Fashion-Designer course but she did not file any document in support of her contention. By the time of accident, she was resided at Kakinada, at present she is residing at G. Medapadu village. She used to do the designing of blouses and sarees by engaging two workers at her house in

Kakinada. Except her oral evidence, there is no documentary proof to show that she used to do fashion designing. Even after accident, she can do the fashion designing but she cannot do efficiently due to her problem to sit on the ground and to get up. She denied the suggestion suggested to her that the accident would not cause any hurdle for her fashion designing work and her work was not suffered due to her accident.

6

She admitted that there was a lorry in front of the bus opposite to the bus. The accident was occurred while the lorry was over taking the RTC bus towards right side. She denied the suggestion suggested to her that due to the rash and negligent driving of their car driver the accident took place that not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus.

She deposed that she was admitted in the hospital on the date of accident and discharged on the next day after 24 hours observation in the hospital.

The hospital authorities informed her that there is no equipment in their hospital and asked them to shift her to KIMS, Hyderabad.

She deposed that she was admitted in KIMS hospital on 29.1.2013 at about 3.00 p.m., or 3.30 p.m. She denied the suggestion suggested to her that there is no necessity for travel her in an Ambulance on that day that she was comfortable to travel in train. She deposed that she was undergone surgery for her hands and leg at KIMS hospital. She was discharged from hospital on 5.2.2013.

On 13.2.2013 she was attended for review. She admitted that they have only suggested her strict non weight bearing walking until further advice as per Ex.A-10.

She denied the suggestion suggested to her that there is no rash and negligent driving of RTC bus driver for the accident that she is deposing falsely.

9.P.W.1 adduced documentary evidence to show that the accident is the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The accident was not denied by the respondents and the evidence of P.W.1 with the documentary evidence discloses that there was an accident and the investigating officer after thorough investigation and collection of evidence made himself sure about the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident and filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. I therefore, hold that the petitioner has established the accident and sustaining of injuries in the accident, for which P.W.1 7 filed the copy of F.I.R., copy of charge sheet and wound certificate, I therefore, answer this issue in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner.

10.Issue No. 2 :

To support the petitioner’s contention, she got examined Dr. Partha

Patim Cheterjee, who is working as Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon in Apollo

Hospital, Kakinada as P.W.2. He deposed that on 28.1.2013 the petitioner P.

Suvarna Pushpa, aged 36 years was admitted into hospital and as per the wound certificate issued from Casualty Medical officer of their hospital, the patient had the following injuries:

1)Lacerated wound over right thigh about 2 x 2 cms.

2)Compound comminuted fracture of right distal femur.

3)Comminuted fracture proximal ulna with radial head dislocation.

He opined that the injury numbers 2 and 3 are grievous in nature and

Ex.A.4 is the wound certificate. Patient was taken for procedure under sedition in operation theater and following procedures were done.

1)Debridement and re-positioning of protruded part of femur wound closure.

2)Closed reduction and POP slab application for elbow injury. ‘

X-ray chest was done and as per report patient had fractures in 6thto 9thribs on left side. The original case sheet pertaining to the patient treatment with total hundred and sixteen pages is produced before the court and it is marked as

Ex.X-1. The bunch of X-rays ( 5 in numbers) relating to this patient is marked as

Ex.X.2. C.T. Scan brain film (1 in number) relating to the patient is marked as

Ex.X-3. Ex.A.8 was issued by their hospital authorities to the petitioner at the time of her discharge. The patient has not come to him after discharge from his hospital. He deposed that entire treatment cost was paid.

8

11.In the cross-examination by R.2 counsel he admitted that the patient was discharged from the hospital on the next day after admission. He admitted that patient was discharged against medical advice. It is possible to get some amount of further tissue trauma due to movement when such patients are transported to long distances.

12. To support the petitioner’s contention, she got examined Dr. K.

Krishnaiah who is working as Orthopedic Surgeon in KIMS Hospitalsas P.W.2.

He deposed that on 29.1.2013 he had admitted a patient by name Suvarna Pushpa, aged 34 years. She was initially admitted in a local hospital at Kakinada following the accident on 28.1.2013. Upon admission general condition was satisfactory, but he had noticed the following injuries:

1) A multi fragmented fracture of right thigh bone near the joint.

2) Multi fragmented fracture of left fore-arm with shattered elbow joint.

3) An open wound of about 8 cms. length in right thigh.

4) Fracture of left patella (knee cap)

5) Fractured 5,6,7 and 8 rib bones on the right side.

After stabilizing the patient condition, patient underwent operations on left forearm wherein the broken bone was fixed with plate and screws and the dislocated elbow joint was reduced. Another operation was conducted on the right thigh bone wherein a long plate was used to fix the broken bone. Both operations were conducted on 30.1.2013. She was given physiotherapy and medication and finally discharged on 5.2.2013. She was followed in the outpatient department regularly and physiotherapy was performed. Due to fracture of right thigh and fracture of left arm patient had to be in bed and wheel chair for nearly two months.

During this time the patient had to depend very much on others including family members for her daily activities like eating, clothing, bathing etc. She also suffered with a great deal of pain and emotional imbalance due to the seriousness of 9 fractures and therefore needed counseling and support by the family. Although the surgery has yielded satisfactory result in view of the complexity and seriousness of fractures her moments in elbow joint and knee joint were restricted and limited.

The elbow joint re-dislocated during the course of treatment. However, after carefully evaluating the situation it was decided to leave it as it is.

He further deposed that as the metallic plates were come in the way of moment of her elbow joint, she was admitted to Medicity Hospital for convenience on 5.3.2014 when the screws and plates were removed. As he worked both in

KIMS and Medicity Hospital for the sake of cost and convenience, he performed this operation as one day case admission. She subsequently followed in the O.P.

department with regular exercises and physiotherapy. After the fracture in the thigh bone has healed, it was decided to remove the metallic plate. Subsequently she was admitted on 2.9.2015 for removal of plate at KIMS. Due to complexity and bone growth over the plate the metals could not be removed and therefore decided to leave inside as any serious attempts could endanger a fracture.

He further deposed that he had reviewed her recently and noted the fracture in the thigh bone has healed satisfactorily. Except, some pain on occasionally she has no major problem in walking. However, her left elbow has restricted moments causing inconvenience frequently. There is also a large visible scar over the fore arm. He deposed that Ex.X.4 is the case sheet of KIMS. Ex.X.5 is the case sheet of Medicity. Ex.X.6 is the latter case sheet of KIMS. EXs. A.11 and

A.12 are the bills issued by KIMS. EXs. A.15, 17,19, 21 and 22 are relating to

Medicity hospital. Ex.A.10 was issued by KIMS. He deposed that she may require surgery for her elbow joint in the form of removing part of the dislocated bone.

She also may require surgery in thigh to remove the plate if it gives problems.

13.In the cross-examination by R.2 counsel he admitted that as per Ex.A.4 there are two injuries. Tailoring does not require normally functioning 10 limbs. Person with gross disability can also do tailoring. He had seen the patient recently and confirmed that she had dislocated Radial head in her elbow joint. He admitted that the hospital does not keep the outpatient record to support that however his mere memory says that she attended as outpatient at KIMS several times.

14.The petitioner proved the case by filing oral and documentary evidence and the 2ndrespondent though filed its counter before the Court, he did not step into the witness box to depose evidence by supporting his contentions raised in his counter. In those circumstances, R.1 and R.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. This point is answered accordingly.

15. POINT No.3:

Coming to the quantum of compensation, the petitioner claimed compensation amount of Rs.10,59,350/- under several heads. Compensation for partial loss of earnings and loss of earnings she claimed Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner did not file any documentary proof to show that she is doing fashion designer work by engaging two workers. The petitioner did not file her income proof nor maintaining accounts for her business nor the particulars of payments of wages to the workers. The petitioner if she is having qualification of fashion designing she must underwent some course for her fashion designing course, but she did not file any document in support of her contention though she did fashion designer course. Therefore, under this head she is not entitled the compensation by presuming that she is having loss of earnings under her profession. Compensation for transport to hospital i.e., Apollo Hospital, Kakinada and Hyderabad the petitioner claimed Rs.40,000/-, for which she is entitled for Rs.40,000/- as she filed EXs. A.9, A.16, A.18, A.20 and A.23. The petitioner claimed Rs.30,000/- for medical expenses at Apollo hospital, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.335.12ps. and

Rs.22,474/- under EXs. A.7 and A.8. The Medical Officer who examined as P.W.2 11 has also categorically deposed that the patient was treated in their hospital and they issued Ex.A.8 to the petitioner at the time of her discharge, as such, the amount claimed by the petitioner under EXs. A.7 and A.8 are entitled by her as the entire treatment cost was paid by her. She is entitled for Rs.22,809/- under this head. The petitioner claimed Rs.2,69,350/-for medical expenses at Krishna

Institute of Medical Sciences and the petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,69,350/- as per

Ex.A.11. The petitioner also paid an amount of Rs.3,013.50ps. under Ex.A.12. The

Ex.A.15, A.17, A.19, A.21 and A.22 are related to Medicity Hospital, for which the petitioner did not prove by examiningthe witness. The petitioner claimed

Rs.2,00,000/- for future medical expenses as per the opinion of doctors at

Hyderabad, but she did not file any written estimation of the doctors for future medical expenses, hence, the same is rejected. The petitioner claimed Rs.20,000/- for attendant charges but she did not examine the person who received the attendant charges from the petitioner under Ex.A.24 cash receipts. As such, the attendant charges are not allotted to the petitioner under this head. The petitioner claimed Rs.50,000/- for mental agony for which she is entitled for Rs.20,000/-as she suffered for a considerable days with grievous injuries and underwent mental agony. The petitioner claimed Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering for which she is entitled for Rs.50,000/-as she received grievous injuries and undergone operation. The petitioner claimed Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of disability of work, for which there is no evidence on record. The Medical Officers who are examined on behalf of the petitioner categorically deposed in their cross-examination that tailoring does not require normally functioning limbs. Person with gross disability can also do tailoring. As such, the petitioner is not entitled the amount under this head. Compensation for loss of earning power the petitioner claimed Rs.1,00,000/-.

The amount for loss of earnings as already stated above in supra that she is not entitled for loss of earnings and as such, she is not entitled for any compensation under this head, hence, it is rejected. So, a sum of Rs.4,05,172.62ps. rounded to 12

Rs.4,06,300/- is granted as compensation under the above heads to the petitioner.

The respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay the total compensation of Rs.4,06,000/- to the petitioner. This point is answered accordingly in favour of petitioner.

16.Issue No. 3 : In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs granting compensation of Rs.4,06,000/-directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the said amount with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till date of realization. The rest of the petition claim is dismissed without costs. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of this judgment.The petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and kept the remaining balance under fixed deposit for a period of one year in any nationalized bank. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 15thday of February, 2016.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

CUM IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

KAKINADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PETITIONER:

P.W.1 : P. Suvarna Pushpa

P.W.2 : Dr. P.P. Cheterjee

P.W.3 : Dr. K. Krishnaiah

FOR RESPONDENTS : None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.A-1 : Certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr. No. 27/2013 of SHO., Samalkot.

13

Ex.A-2 : Certified copy of M.V.I. Report.

Ex.A-3 : Certified copy of Charge sheet.

Ex.A-4 : Certified copy of wound certificate.

Ex.A-5 : Diagnosis and discharge summary issued by Apollo hospital, Kakinada dt. 29.1.2103.

Ex.A-6 : Three receipts issued by Rotary Blood Bank.

Ex.A-7 : Bill for medicines issued by Apollo hospital for Rs.335.12ps.

Ex.A-8 : Bill issued by Apollo hospital, Kakinada for treatment given to the petitioner as Rs. 22,474/-.

Ex.A-9 : Receipt issued by Ambulance by Sri Vijaya Taxi Services and Ambulance.

Ex.A-10 : Discharge summary issued by KIMS, Secunderabad.

Ex.A-11 : Bill and prescription issued by KIMS, Secunderabad for an amount Rs. 2,68,350/-.

Ex.A-12 : Pharmacy receipt issued by KIMS for Rs. 3,013.50ps.

Ex.A-13 : Bills issued by Amar India Surgical Company for Wheel Chair and commode chair for Rs. 9,500/-.

Ex.A-14 : Receipt issued by Vijaya Tax Service and Ambulance service for Rs.20,000/-.

Ex.A-15 : Two receipts issued by Medicity Health Care for Rs. 350/- and Rs. 320/-.

Ex.A-16 : Receipt issued by Vianayaka Taxi owners and Cultural Association for Rs.14,000/-.

Ex.A-17 : Two receipts issued by Medicity Health care for Rs. 480/- and Rs. 300/-.

Ex.A-18 : Receipt issued by Sri Vinayaka Taxi Owners and Workers Cultural Association for an amount of Rs.13,200/-.

Ex.A-19 : Two medical bills of Medicity Health care for Rs. 480/- and Rs. 300/-.

Ex.A-20 : Receipt issued by Vinayaka Taxi Owners and workers Cultural Association for Rs. 13,000/-.

Ex.A-21 : Two receipts issued by Medicity Health Care, Hyderabad for Rs. 660/- and Rs.300/-.

Ex.A-22 : Inpatient final bill as Rs.23,327-42ps. issued by Medicity Hospital, Hyderabad.

Ex.A-23 : Receipt issued by Vianayaka Taxi owners and workers cultural association for Rs.15,300/-.

Ex.A-24 : Bunch of receipts issued by Arjamanthula Seetha Devi as attendant for 14 monthly salary of Rs.4,000/-.

Ex.A-25 : Bill issued by Physiotherapist for an amount of Rs.20,000/-.

Ex.X1 : Case sheet of Apollo Hospital, Kakinada.

Ex.X2 : X-rays five in number

Ex.X3 : C.T. Scan brain film.

Ex.X4 : Case sheet along with three X-ray films of KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad.

Ex.X5 : Case sheet of Medicity Hospital.

Ex.X6 : Latter case sheet of KIMS, Secunderabad.

FOR RESPONDENTS: Nil.

IV A.D.J.

Kakinada.

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CUM IV ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE : EAST GODAVARI : KAKINADA.

Present: Smt. J. Srilakshmi,

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum

IV Addl. District Judge.

Tuesday, the 16 th day of February, 2016

M.V.O.P.No. 121 of 2013

Between:

Indugubelli Arjamma.. Petitioner

A n d

1. Tangella Sambasivarao

2. APS RTC Mushirabad, Hyderabad,

rep. by its Chairman and Mg. Director.. Respondents

This petition coming before me for final hearing on 28.1.2016 in the presence of Sri G. Srinivasarao, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri A. Venkatesh, Advocate for the 2ndrespondent and 1strespondent set exparte and on hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This petition is filed by the petitioner U/s.166 of M.V. Act R/W. Rules 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the motor accident with interest at 18% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of realization.

2.On 2.8.2012 early morning at about 6.30 a.m., the petitioner

Indugubelli Arjamma boarded auto AP 5 TA 757 in Annavaram to go to up hills of

Devastanam for her duty and along with Geddam Satyavathi, Palivela Arjamma also boarded the auto. When the auto reached near Devastanam garage at about 6.30 a.m., APS RTC Bus bearing No. AP 16 Z 0087 was coming from Kathipudi towards Annavaram in opposite direction being driven by the 1strespondent in a 2 rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and at high speed, came suddenly to right side, dashed the auto, due to which the auto turned turtle. The inmates of auto sustained injuries. Geddam Satyavathi sustained fatal injuries and she died on the spot. The accident was occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC Bus by the 1strespondent.

The petitioner is sustained grievous and fracture injuries – laceration on left back, laceration on right elbow, pain and tenderness to left side head, external area, right knee, left back and she sustained injuries all over body. The injuries 1 and 2 are simple and rest is grievous in nature. The petitioner was admitted in Government Hospital, Tuni and took treatment. She is inpatient for one month, X-rays were taken. Operations were done, steel rods were fixed.

P.O.P. and surgeries were done. There is permanent disability due to the injuries.

Still she is taking treatment.

The S.H.O., Annavaram Police Station registered a case in Cr. No.

143/2012 under Sections 337, 304-A I.P.C.

The petitioner is a resident of M.D. Peta, Annavaram and she is aged about 40 years, She is temporarily working in Annadanam Section, S.V.V.S.

Devastanam, A. Annavaram. She is getting Rs.9,000/- p.m. There is permanent disability due to the injuries.

respondent is the driver of the RTC Bus and 2ndrespondent is The 1st owner and they are liable for the accident. The petitioner claiming compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/- from R1 and R2 jointly and severally. Hence the petition.

The 1strespondent remained exparte. The 2nd

3.respondent filed its counter stating that the various allegations stated in the petition are neither true nor valid under Law. This respondent admitted that the bus bearing No. AP 16

Z 0087 belongs to the 2ndrespondent and the 1strespondent is the driver of the bus on the alleged date of accident that is on 2.8.2012.

3

This respondent submits that on the date of accident the bus is running in between Kathipudi and Tuni and when the bus reached near Annavaram garage an auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 5 T 757 is going ahead to the bus, then the driverof the bus slowly and cautiously driving, the driver of the auto suddenly turned to the right side of the road and stopped the auto in front of the bus without giving any signal, then the driver of the bus applied the break and stopped the bus suddenly and due to that sound the driver of the auto confused and started the auto in such stage because of the road condition the auto tilted down and fall on the ground and all these happened due to the careless and reckless driving of the auto driver, actually the bus was not involved in the accident, as such, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus.

The petitioner received the injuries due to the negligence of the auto driver, she cannot claim compensation against the driver of the bus. The injuries caused to the petitioner are simple in nature and the compensation claimed by her is very high in nature and she is not entitled for any amount of compensation as claimed in her petition. Hence, prays this Court to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.Basing on the strength of the pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial :

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Ambulance bearing registration No. AP 16 Z 0087 by R1, resulting in injuries to the petitioner?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

5.In the trial afforded to both parties, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the petitioner and marked Ex.A1 to A4 and EXs.X1 and X.2 on its behalf. On behalf of the respondents, neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents marked.

4

6.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material available on record.

7.Issue No. 1 :

It is being a petition filed U/s.166 M.V. Act, it is incumbent on the petitioner to establish the identity of the offending vehicle and sustaining injuries in the accident and the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The petitioner was examined herself as P.W.1 and filed her chief examination affidavit by reiterating the petition contents in her chief examination affidavit. To support her contention, she filed Exs.A1 to A4 documents. They are

Ex.A1 is the attested copy of F.I.R. Ex.A-2 is the attested copy of wound certificate.

Ex.A-3 is the attested copy of M.V.I. report and Ex.A4 is the attested copy of charge sheet.

8.In the cross examination by R.2 counsel the petitioner denied the suggestion suggested to her that the auto driver did not give any signals to the

RTC bus and without observing the RTC bus suddenly crossed the road. She deposed that she is a sweeper working at Annavaram Devasthanam. She filed her salary certificate to show that she is earning Rs.9,000/- per month. She admitted that the entire treatment was done at Government General Hospital, Kakinada. The witness voluntarily stated that after discharge from the hospital she was treated in the private hospital.

9.P.W.1 adduced documentary evidence to show that the accident is the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The accident was not denied by the respondents and the evidence of P.W.1 with the documentary evidence discloses that there was an accident and the investigating officer after thorough investigation and collection of evidence made himself sure about the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident and filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle.I therefore, hold that the petitioner has 5 established the accident and sustaining of injuries in the accident, for which P.W.1 filed the copy of charge sheet and wound certificate, I therefore, answer this issue in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner.

10.Issue No. 2 :

To support the petitioner’s contention, she got examined Dr. B.T.V.N.

Raju, who previously worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Tuni as

P.W.2. He deposed that on 2.8.2012 he examinedthe injured by name

I. Arjamma, W/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 40 years, R/o. Annavaram and found the following injuries:

1. A laceration left back 1 x 1 cms. x 1 mm

2. A laceration right elbow 1 cm x 1 mm x 1 mm

3. Pain and tenderness in left side of the head

4. Pain and tenderness in sterna area

5. Pain and tenderness in right knee

6. Pain and tenderness in left back

He referred the injured for Radiology Department for X-ray. He issued only wound certificate to the injured as he is of the opinion that injury Nos.1 and 2 are simple and the opinion is pending for injury Nos. 3,4,5 and 6. Ex.A-2 is the wound certificate issued by him. The entire treatment was given to the injured by the Orthopedic Surgeon at Area Hospital, Tuni and he gave only First Aid to the injured at Casualty.

In the cross examination by R.2 counsel P.W.2 deposed that he cannot say the injury Nos. 3 to 6 are simple or grievous in nature as opinion is pending as per Ex.A-2. He admitted that the entire treatment in their hospital is on free of cost.

11.To support the petitioner’s contention, she got examined Dr. K.

Maheswara Rao, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Tuni as P.W.3. He deposed 6 that on 2.8.2012 he examinedthe injured by nameI. Arjamma, W/o.

Satyanarayana, Aged 40 years, R/o. Annavaram and he endorsed the observation made by him in the case sheet as she sustained contusion right knee joint and fracture to 4thrib on left side. The both injuries are treated conservatively. No surgery was done. The patient was discharged on 10.8.2012 in stable condition.

The above two injuries are grievous in nature.

In the cross examination by R.2 counsel he deposed that he did not personally verify the wounds observed by the Casualty Medical Officer nor he sent the wound certificate to him.

12.The petitioner proved the case by filing oral and documentary evidence and the 2ndrespondents though filed its counter before the Court, he did not step into the witness box to depose evidence by supporting his contentions raised in his counter. In those circumstances, R.1 and R.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. This point is answered accordingly.

13.Coming to the quantum of compensation, the petitioner claimed compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under several heads. Compensation for loss of earnings she claimed Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,000/- under this head. Compensation for extra nourishment the petitioner claimed

Rs.5,000/-, for which she is entitled for Rs.5,000/-, if a person admitted in hospital and took treatment, that he/she should incurred some expenditure for extra nourishment, therefore Rs.5,000/- is granted and it is justified under this head. Compensation for medical expenses, she claimed Rs.15,000/-, for which the petitioner has not filed any medical bills except filing of the wound certificate. The petitioner had taken treatment in a Government Institution, hence there is no necessity to spent amounts for medicines as deposed by P.W.2. Therefore, the claim under this head is rejected. Compensation for mental agony she claimed

Rs.10,000/- for which she is entitled for Rs.10,000/-as she suffered for a considerable days with two grievousinjuries and underwent mental agony.

7

Compensation for physical pain and suffering she claimed Rs.10,000/- for which she is entitled for Rs.40,000/-as she received two grievous injuries and two simple injuries. Though she claimed Rs.10,000/- under this head, she is entitled for

Rs.40,000/-. Compensation for loss of earning power and support she claimed

Rs.25,000/- and permanent disability due to the grievous and fracture injuries she claimed Rs.25,000/-, for which there is no evidence on record, as P.Ws.2 and 3 also did not depose anything about the permanent disability of the petitioner.

Moreover, the petitioner was discharged in stable condition on 10.8.2012. The amount for loss of earnings as already calculated under the head of loss of earnings and as such, she is not entitled for any compensation under these two heads, hence, it is rejected.So, a sum of Rs.57,000/-is granted as compensation under the above heads to the petitioner. The respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay the total compensation of Rs.57,000/-to the petitioner.This point is answered accordingly in favour of petitioner.

14.Issue No. 3 : In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs granting compensation of Rs.57,000/-directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the said amount with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till date of realization. The rest of the petition claim is dismissed without costs. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of this judgment. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount at once. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 16thday of February, 2016.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

CUM IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

KAKINADA.

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PETITIONER:

P.W.1 : Indugapalli Arjamma

P.W.2 : Dr. B.T.V.N. Raju

P.W.3 : Dr. K. Maheswara Rao

FOR RESPONDENTS : None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex A1 : Attested copy of F.I.R. Ex A2 : Attested copy of Wound certificate. Ex A3 : Attested copy of M.V.I. report.

Ex A4 : Attested copy of charge sheet.

Ex.X1 : Case sheet.

Ex.X2 : 2 X-ray films.

FOR RESPONDENTS: Nil.

IV A.D.J.

Kakinada.

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE KAKINADA

Present: Smt. J Srilakshmi,

IV Addl. District Judge

This the 17th day of February, 2016

O.S.No 50 of 2015

Between :

1) Namburi Anasuya Address - Amalapuram. Rep. by GPA Holder Pullipudi Kanakaraju So.Atchuta Rama Krishnayya. D.No.45-6-11, Old Hospital street, Near Jaya Rama sharma hospital, Jagannaickpur. Advocate- Sri B.Rajesh

Plaintif

.

And

1) Guttula Suryanarayana Address - 69-6-67, New Gaigolupadu.

2) Guttula Venkata Ramana 69-6-67, New Gaigolupadu.

3) Guttula Siva 69-6-67, New Gaigolupadu.

4) Guttula Appala Raju 69-6-67, New Gaigolupadu.

5) Ketha Leelavathi 3-16A-71, Postal colony.

6) Yerramsetti Kasi Visweswara Rao 13-56, I.D.P.L.Colony, Indira nagar.

7) Kotla Suresh Kumar 19-20, KPHB Colony,

Defendants This suit coming on 17.02.2016 before me in the presence of advocate for the plaintif and the advocate for Defendants on hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

Judgment pronounced. VSJ. In the result, the suit is decreed with

costs directing the defendants 1 to 4 to execute a rectification deed in

favour of plaintiff rectifying the plot number of the schedule prop-

erty therein as 83 instead of 83/A and the eastern boundary therein as

site in Plot No.83/A instead of 83/B and in Northern boundary as site

in plot No.68 instead of 68/A relating to her sale deed dt. 24-2-1988

by way of mandatory injunction that the suit is also decreed declar-

ing the title of plaintiff over plaint schedule property, that the sale

deed- document No.2237 of 2003 of District Registrar Office, Kaki-

nada. dt. 15-3-2003 executed in favour of defendant No.5 by the de-

fendants 1 to 4 is hereby canceled, that the defendants are restrained

from ever interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

plaint schedule property by the plaintiff by way of permanent injunc-

tion.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17th day of February, 2016

Sd/- xxxxxxx

IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

KAKINADA.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

EAST GODAVARI AT KAKINADA

Present: SRI N.MALYADRI III Additional District Judge 26-10-2016 ORIGINAL SUIT No.262 of 2014

Between:

Gurrala Sunitha Rani ... Plaintiff.

AND 1.Vaddi Ramakrishna 2.Vaddi Srinivasarao

3.Vaddi Madhu ... Defendants.

This is a suit for preliminary decree for partition of the schedule property into four equal and equitable shares by meets and bounds and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and put him in possession and to pass final decree and for costs.

This suit coming on this day for trial before me in the presence of Sri A.M.D, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri P.S, Advocate for the 1st Defendant and defendants 2 and 3 called absent and set exparte and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Plaintiff called absent. Plaintiff counsel represented that the party may be called. Party called thrice. No representation. Hence, suit is dismissed for default without costs.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 26 th day of October,

2016.

III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

KAKINADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Nil.

III A.D.J.