IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL – CUM –
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, (FAST TRACK COURT), SRIKAKULAM
Present: Ms.B.S.Bhanumathi, B.Sc.,L.L.M.,
Principal District & Sessions Judge – cum – Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
FAC, II Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. Saturday this the 31st day of March, 2012.
M.V.O.P.No. 233/2010
Between: Chaitanya Panigrahi, S/o Kurmanadha Panigrahi, Aged 26 years, Hindu, resident of Maradarajapuram village, Palasa mandal, Srikakulam District.
...Petitioner
And:
1. M.Viswanadham S/o Chandrayya, age not known, Rentikota village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakkulam District, Owner of auto bearing No.AP 30/U 4874 LMV A/R Piago2006.
2. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Srikakulam.
...Respondents
This petition coming on 27032012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Sampathkumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri P.V.Ramanadayal, Advocate for the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent having remained exparte, and having stood over till this day this Court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This is a petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (‘briefly the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident i.e., 03.08.2007 till the date of realization and costs for the injuries suffered by Chaitanya Panigrahi son of Kurmanadha Panigrahi in a motor vehicle accident.
2.The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows:
1st respondent is the drivercumowner of the auto bearing No.AP 30 U 4874 and the 2nd respondent is its insurer vide Policy Cover Note No.150400/8/07/0000001414 dt.1.06.2007. On 03.08.2007 the petitioner boarded the above auto to go to Palasa.
After passing Loddabadra village, 1st respondent drover the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and while trying to avert the auto coming in opposite direction, he lost his control over the auto. As a result, the auto turned turtle and the petitioner sustained severe injuries including grievous injuries. He along with the other injured persons was shifted to Community Health Centre, Palasa. As per the advice of the Doctor, he was shifted to Sai Srinivasa Orthopaedic & Trauma Care Centre at Kasibugga. The petitioner spent Rs.40,990/ for medical expenses. The Station Hose Officer, Kasibugga
Police Station registered a case in Crime No.160/07 against the 1st respondent and filed charge sheet vide CC 223/07 on the file of the court of Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,
Palasa. The petitioner is a vegetable business man. Due to his continuous absence, he suffered loss. He is also put to mental agony. The 1st respondent had valid driving licence vide No. DLR AP 03018433 2005. Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
3.The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the material averments in the petition and putting the petitioner to strict proof of all the petition averments. The compensation claimed is very excessive and so also the interest. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:
1. Whether the injured had sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 03.08.2007 at about 7.30 AM on Goppili to Palasa road within Kasibugga Police Station limits, Srikakulam District? If so, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No. AP 30 U 4874 by its driver?
2. Whether the injured is entitled to claim any compensation? If so to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?
5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the 2nd respondent Ex.B.1 copy of the Policy is marked.
6.Heard both sides.
7.ISSUE No.1:
There is no dispute about the occurrence of the accident, its place and time.
Similarly there is no dispute about the involvement of the auto in the accident and the petitioner sustained the injuries in such accident. But the 2nd respondent disputed the rashness and negligence of the driver of the auto and suggested that about 20 passengers were travelling in the auto but there is no evidence to that effect. Even as per the charge sheet there were only five injured. No rebuttal evidence was adduced by the contesting respondent either by examining the driver of the crime vehicle or any other witness.
The evidence of the petitioner stands supported by the complaint vide Ex.A1 and also the fact that the charge sheet vide Ex.A.2 was laid against the 1st respondent after due investigation. Accordingly, the petitioner could establish that the accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto of the 1st respondent.
Accordingly this issue is settled in favour of the petitioner.
8.ISSUE No.2:
1st respondent was the drivercumowner of the crime vehicle as can be seen from the charge sheet and also the copy of the insurance policy filed by the 2nd respondent vide Ex.B.1. It also proves the subsistence of the valid policy as on the date of accident. Thus, both the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
9.The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ under the following heads:
1.Loss of income, loss of future earnings, loss of Rs.40,000/ amenities of life, loss of bright future due to permanent disability and pecuniary loss 2Medical and travelling expensesRs.45,000/ 3Extra nourishment of food etcRs.2,500/ 4Attendant chargesRs.2,500/ 5Compensation for pain and sufferingRs.10,000/ TOTALRs.1,00,000/
10.Irrespective of different heads under which the compensation claimed by the petitioner, it is settled law that the Tribunal shall award just and reasonable compensation.
11.The petitioner claimed compensation for pain and suffering stating that he suffered grievous injury due to fracture of his leg and suffered other injuries. He relied on the certified copy of the wound certificate under Ex.A.4 and also the prescriptions filed by him. Ex.A.4 shows the following injuries:
1.Swelling, severe tenders, immobility of right leg.
Xray 921, dt.3.8.07: Fracture of right tibia shaft present at the joint of upper 2/3rd and lower 1/3rd of shaft.
The above injury is grievous in nature.
It is not the case of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner has not suffered such injury.
Ex.A.4 also shows that the petitioner suffered injury. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to compensation for pain and suffering at the rate of Rs.10,000/.
12.The petitioner claimed that he spent Rs.40,990/ towards medical expenses and filed various bills under Ex.A.6 and Ex.A.7. All these documents were denied by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has not examined any doctor to prove that he has taken treatment in private nursing home, but he has filed prescription and medical bills. As the petitioner has suffered fracture injuries, he might have undergone surgery for the same. The medical bills and the prescriptions of Sai Srinivasa Orthopaedic & Trauma
Care Centre at Kasibugga, filed by the petitioner appear to be genuine. He also filed the discharge summary vide Ex.A.5. It shows that the date of admission as 03.08.2007, the date of surgery as 05.08.2007 and the date of discharge as 14.08.2007. The same hospital has given medical bill for Rs.14,700/ for the surgery charges like, hospital charges, nursing charges, surgical charges, theatre charges etc. In view of the treatment taken by the petitioner, the expenses shown under such medical bill dt.14.08.2007 is justified. But bunch of medical bills filed by him relating to Sai Medicals and General
Stores are not supported by any prescriptions. Hence, huge claim made there under cannot be allowed. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to medical expenses of Rs.14,700/.
13.The petitioner has claimed that he lost his earnings due to the accident and that he used to earn Rs.4,000/ per month as vegetables merchant. He has not placed any evidence of his actual earnings. But due to the injury to his leg, he must have lost his earnings for certain period. As there is no evidence about the exact loss of income, a reasonable amount of compensation can be granted for loss of past income. As such, an amount of Rs.5000/ is granted towards loss of income.
14.The petitioner claimed compensation alleged that he suffered permanent disability but he has not placed any evidence that he has any kind of disability. Hence, he is not entitled to any kind of compensation. But a reasonable amount of compensation can be awarded for loss of amenities of life for a temporary period during which the petitioner is confined to bed. As such, an amount of Rs.2,000/ is granted to compensate the same.
15.The petitioner has also claimed compensation for attendant charges at the rate of
Rs.2,500/ but he has not filed any proof of the same. However, since he is confined to bed he certainly requires attendance of an outsider engaged by him or his family member in any event the petitioner might have incurred some expenses for such person who attend on him. Therefore, an amount of Rs.2,000/ is granted to compensate the same.
16.The petitioner claimed compensation for travelling expenses and extra nourishment expenses for which no evidence placed. However, a reasonable compensation can be allowed as these expenses are inevitable. As such considering the facts and circumstances in this case regarding the place of treatment and period of treatment etc., an amount of Rs.5,000/ is granted under these heads together.
17.The petitioner also claimed compensation for future medical expenses stating that he requires another operation for removal of the steel rods. But no evidence placed about the probable expenses for the same. The evidence on record does not suggest that he requires one more operation of their removal. Therefore, no amount of any compensation can be granted under this head.
Thus, in all the petitioner is entitled Rs. 38,700/ (Rs.10,000/ Rs.14,700/ +
Rs.5,000/ + Rs.2,000/ + Rs.2,000/ + Rs.5,000/)
18.The petitioner claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident 03.08.2007 till the date of realization. But the petitioner is entitled to compensation from the date of petition only as per Section 171 of Motor Vehicles Act.
Further, he is entitled to interest at the rate prevailing in National Banks about the period of accident. Since the accident occurred in 2007, when the rates of interest are moderately low, but a little higher than in the past, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Therefore, the petitioner is e entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
19.Since the accident occurred long back and major portion of the amount of the compensation is towards amount already spent for medical expenses, travelling expenses etc., no purpose would be served by directing investment of any portion of the compensation amount in Fixed Deposit. Moreover it is held in the case of A.V.Padma & Ors Versus R.Venugopal & Ors 2012 SAR (Civil) 2010 by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that investment of portion of the compensation amount in long terms deposit not mandatory in the case of literate persons. In the present case, the petitioner being a business man, it can be understood that he is a literate person who can manage his financial affairs. Therefore, the petitioner can be permitted to withdraw the entire amount.
Thus, I answer the above issue.
20.ISSUE No.3:
In the result, the petition is allowed with proportionate costs directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.38,700/ (rupees thirty eight thousand, seven hundred only) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, with joint and several liability .
The respondents 1 and 2 shall deposit the Demand Draft in favour of the petitioner for said amount within 30 days from the date of this order and on such deposit the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount in lump sum.
The fee of the Advocate is fixed at Rs. 500/.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced
by me in open court, this the 31st day of March 2012.
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum Prl. District Judge, (FAC) II Addl.District & Sessions Judge (FTC) Srikakulam.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDLENTS: NONE
P.W.1: Chaitanya Panigrahi
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PETITIONER:
Ex.A1 : CC of First Information Report. Ex.A2 : CC of charge sheet. Ex.A3 : CC of MVI Report. Ex.A4 : CC of wound certificate. Ex.A5 : Discharge Certificate. Ex.A6 : Cash bills of Rs.14,700/. Ex.A7 : Medical Bills of Rs.26,291/.
FOR RESPONDENTS: NIL
Ex.B1 : Insurance policy
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims TribunalcumPrl. District Judge, (FAC) II Addl.District & Sessions Judge (FTC) Srikakulam.