IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM-
FAMILY COURT-CUM-ADDL. DISTRICT COURT :: ADILABAD.
Present : Sri N. Ananda Rao, B.Sc, LL.M, Chairman, M.A.C.T. -cum- I-Addl. District Judge, Adilabad. FAC:Judge, Family court-cum-Addl
District Judge, Adilabad.
Monday the 2nd day of April 2012.
O.P. No. 283 of 2008.
Between :
P.Likith Reddy S/o. Mahender Reddy, Age 22 years, Occ: Student of M.B.B.S., Mamatha Medical College, Khammam, R/o. Plot.No.37, Kailashnagar, Adilabad, District Adilabad.
...Petitioner
// AND //
1. Mr.Ch.Hanumantha Rao S/o. Bhaskar Rao, Age: Not know, Major, Occ: Owner of Auto Trolley bearing No. AP20V-5574, R/o. D.No.4-1-57, Rotarynagar, Khammam.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd, Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Khammam. (Policy Cover Note No.461462 valid from 18.09.2005 to 17.09.2006)
....Respondents
This petition has been finally heard on 01.02.2012 in the presence of Sri.A.Amarender Reddy, Advocate, for the petitioner and Sri. S.Raja Ram, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 is set exparte and remained exparte and having stood for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :--
O R D E R
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner against Respondents No.1 and 2 u/sec 166 (1) (a) of M.V. Act for a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident on 22.04.2006 at 8.00 pm at Ambedkar Centre near
Collectorate in Khammam town.
2.Originally this petition was filed by the petitioner for a compensation of
Rs.30,00,000/- and in the course of time he filed a petition for amendment of petition vide
IA.229/2009 and that was allowed on 11.08.2009 and in view of that amendment, the
compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- is amended to Rs.50,00,000/- and there are consequential amendments, suiting the plea of the petitioner regarding the amendment of compensation.
3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-
The petitioner was prosecuting M.B.B.S, 1st year in Mamatha Medical College in Khammam. The petitioner joined Mamatha Medical College and obtained the seat under
Management Quota and paid Rs.20,00,000/- to the College towards Fee. Apart from that
Fee, petitioner also born other expenses and he also paid Hostel Fee. On 22.04.2006 during night time petitioner as pillion rider was going to Bookstall at Station road,
Khammam on motorcycle bearing No. AP20Z-3910 and at about 8.00 pm, the motorcycle reached in between Collectorate and Z.P. Office near Ambedkar Centre and at that time the offending vehicle Auto Trolley bearing No. AP20Z-5574 which was driven by its driver rashly, negligently and at high speed, dashed the motorcycle and due to that petitioner and the rider of the motorcycle fell down on the road and petitioner sustained grievous head injury which resulted in right Parieto temporal extradural temporal bone and several injuries on other parts of the body. The petitioner became unconscious and immediately he was shifted to Mamatha Super Specialty Hospital in Khammam. As the condition of the petitioner was very critical, with the consent of his parents who were in Adilabad Town, emergency operation was conducted on the early hours of 23.04.2006 for the right Parieto- temporal extradural Haematoma. That operation was conducted by Dr.P.Asadharan, a
Neuro Surgeon in the Hospital. On 23.04.2006 at about 11.30 am on the advise of
Dr.Asadharan and others, petitioner was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda in a fully equipped ambulance with A/C Ventilator facility accompanied by two specialist doctors and one nurse for critical care. The parents and sister and other relatives of petitioner followed the ambulance in a hired car and the petitioner was admitted in Yashoda Hospital at 5.00 pm and Dr.Asadharan, Neuro Surgeon who referred the petitioner for further treatment to
Yashoda Hospital contacted Dr.M.Ranganadham, Neuro Surgeon in the Yashoda Hospital,
Somajiguda and appraised him about the tests conducted in Mamatha Super Specialty
Hospital and also about the operation conducted therein. After examining the petitioner and also CT Scan reports and Discharge Summary given by Mamatha Super Specialty
Hospital, Khammam, Dr.Ranganadham informed the parents of the petitioner that petitioner's condition was very serious and critical and survival chances were very less and area in the brain concerning speech and memory was damaged completely and there were remote chances of regaining even if the petitioner survives and informed that emergency operation had to be conducted on the brain. With the consent of the parents of the petitioner Dr.Ranganadham conducted surgery for about 8 hours. It was a major and risky operation. In that operation left falnoor's craniotomy + Evaculation of left temporal + Frontal basal contusion + Evaluation of large left frontal intra cerebral haematoma, was done by giving general Anesthesia. The petitioner was discharged on 13.05.2006 from Yashoda
Hospital. The petitioner was in unconscious condition throughout the treatment period. He became conscious only two days before his discharge. The petitioner was kept in ICU and after gaining consciousness he was shifted to special room and thereafter only regained speech. The doctors advised the petitioner to continue follow up treatment for about two years and bed rest for six months. The petitioner availed follow up treatment at regular intervals as per the advise of the doctors and even then he has not recovered fully. The petitioner was admitted into Yashoda Hospital on 07.03.2007 and discharged on 10.03.2007. Again the doctors advised him to take bed rest for another three months and continue the follow up treatment. Even then petitioner has not recovered fully and frequently he was getting giddiness and also fits. The petitioner is getting severe headache and irritation in brain. The petitioner is unable to lead normal life. The doctors advised the petitioner not to go anywhere alone and he always be accompanied by attenders. The voice of the petitioner is lowered down and he is not able to speak fluently. The petitioner is unable to read continuously and if he read books with concentration, he gets severe headache and also fits and giddiness. The doctors advised the petitioner not to give any stress and strain on brain and advised him not to drive motorcycle. The petitioner spent
Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical expenditure and Rs.25,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.50,000/- towards attendant, lodging and boarding charges. The petitioner appeared for 1st years MBBS examination as referred candidate, but he could not clear papers as he could not concentrate on the studies due to headache. After that petitioner approached the doctors and informed them about the headache and that he was not concentrating properly on studies due to headache, giddiness and the fits and he was unable to remember the things. By following the advise of the doctors, the petitioner continued his studies and appeared three times for MBBS 1st year examination. But every time he failed and could not cleare the papers. The petitioner was a bright student in 10th class and intermediate and he secured good marks. But due to the severe injury to the brain, the memory power of the petitioner has come down and he is unable to concentrate on studies. Again petitioner approached Dr.Ranganadham and told him about his difficulty in prosecuting his studies and doctor after examining the petitioner asked him to discontinue MBBS as he could not give stress and strain to his brain. On that the petitioner discontinued his studies from 13.03.2009 and his parents approached the Principal and Management of Mamatha
Medical College to return the fee paid by them after deducting the fee and expenses by that time. But they refused to return any amount quoting rules. Had the petitioner continued his studies, he would have completed MBBS and post graduation in medicine and settled as qualified doctor and due to the accident petitioner lost his academic career as a medical professional and he lost his bright future. The petitioner is remained as only under graduate and he has no income and he is not in a position to do any thing and on the other hand he requires attendant round the clock and his memory power is partially lost and he is getting headache and fits and giddiness. The accident was only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto trolley. The police of PS Traffic Khammam registered a case in Cr.No.79/2006 on the complaint given by employee of Mamatha Medical College against the driver of the trolley. As the parents of the petitioner were in hurry and as all the way they went to Khammam from Adilabad and accompanied the petitioner to Yashoda
Hospital, they could not give complaint to the police. The petitioner was aged 19 years and he was prosecuting his MBBS 1st year by the date of accident and the petitioner was bed ridden for months together and he lost his bright future and opportunity to settle as medical practitioner. Due to the accident and injuries sustained, petitioner lost his Rs.20,00,000/- paid to the Mamatha Medical College. The petitioner is entitled to an amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- towards loss of medical career. The petitioner is entitled to Rs.2,75,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of pleasure and entitled to Rs.2,25,000/- towards continuing partial disability apart from other amounts. 1st respondent is owner of the offending vehicle trolley and it was insured with 2nd respondent and policy was in subsistence at the time of accident.
4.Record shows that Respondent No.1 was set exparte and remained exparte and whereas 2nd respondent filed its counter and contested the petition.
5.The case of the 2nd respondent is as follows:-
The plea of the petitioner that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the auto trolley by its driver is not correct. The accident occurred on account of negligent driving of motorcycle by its rider. The rider of the motorcycle drove the motorcycle unmindful of the vehicular traffic on the road and came into contact with the auto trolley. As the accident took place due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, respondent No.2 has no liability to pay any compensation. The petition is not maintainable as the owner and insurance company of the motorcycle are not the parties to petition.
Respondent No.2 had no knowledge about the registration of criminal case against the driver of the auto trolley. It is for the petitioner to prove the alleged injuries sustained by him and alleged treatment he availed and also the medical expenditure. The plea of the petitioner that due to the injuries he sustained he lost his earning capacity is not correct.
The petitioner was not put to any monetary loss due to the accident. The plea of the petitioner that had he completed MBBS, he would have done his post graduation and he would have settled as medical practitioner and his earning capacity would have been more is only imaginary. It is for the petitioner to prove that the auto trolley was insured with 2nd respondent and policy was in subsistence at the time of accident. The claim of the petitioner is excess. The driver of the auto trolley was not having valid driving license at the time of accident and in that way policy conditions are violated and therefore 2nd respondent has no liability to pay compensation to the petitioner. Petition is liable to be dismissed against 2nd respondent.
6.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed.
1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in injuries to the claimant ?
2. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent act on the part of the driver of R-1's vehicle ?
3. Whether the vehicle of R-1 stood insured with R-2 insurance company on the date of the accident and if so, whether that policy covered the risk of the petitioner ?
4.Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and what is the liability of R-1 and R-2 ?
5.To what relief ?
7.For the petitioner, Pw-1 to 6 are examined and Ex.A-1 to A-54 and Ex.C-1 to
C-5 are marked. For the respondent No.2 no witness is examined and no document is marked.
PW-1 is petitioner. Pw-2 is Dr.Asadharan, Neuro Surgeon who conducted surgery on the petitioner at Mamatha Super Specialty Hospital. Pw-3 is
Dr.P.Ranganadhan, Neuro Surgeon in Somajiguda Yashoda Hospital who treated the petitioner and who conducted surgery. Pw-4 is Lay Secretary of Mamatha Medical College and he is examined to prove that petitioner paid Rs.20,00,000/- to the management of
Mamatha Medical College towards tuition fee and apart from that he also paid some other amount and Mamatha Medical College did not return that amount. Pw-5 is Senior Assistant in Mamatha Medical College, Khammam and he is examined to prove that on receipt of information about the accident, he went to the scene of offence and shifted the petitioner to
Mamatha Super Specialty Hospital and there an operation was conducted and he gave intimation to the parents of the petitioner and other things. Pw-6 is an eyewitness to the accident.
8. ISSUE No.1 and 2: Petitioner relied upon his evidence as Pw-1 and
Pw-6 and to some extent on the evidence of Pw-5 and on the Ex.A-1/FIR and
Ex.A-44/Charge sheet to prove his plea that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle auto trolley by its driver and he relied upon his evidence as Pw-1 and on the evidence of Pw-2 and 3 and on the other voluminous medical reports to prove that he sustained injuries in that accident only. On the other hand respondent No.2 has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence to prove its plea that accident took place due to the negligence of rider of the motorcycle but not due to the negligence of the driver of the auto trolley. Pw-1 in his evidence in chief categorically stated that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto trolley by its driver and rider of the motorcycle was not at fault. In his cross-examination for the respondent No.2 he denied the plea of the 2nd respondent that accident took place due to the negligence of rider of the motorcycle. Ex.A-1 is FIR along with copy of the report given by Pw-5 to the police. In the Ex.A-1/FIR it is clearly alleged that the accident took place only due to the negligence of the driver of the auto trolley. No doubt Pw-5 who gave report is not an eyewitness to the accident. But Pw-6 is an eyewitness to the accident. In the Ex.A-44/Charge sheet the name of Pw-6 is cited as an eyewitness. There is no evidence on record to hold that Pw-6 is not an eyewitness and he is only a planted witness. Pw-6 in his evidence in chief categorically stated that he is the Proprietor of
Kavitha Printing Press at Waira Road, Khammam town and on 22.04.2006 at about 8.00 pm he was going to Illandu road from his Printing Press and in between Zilla Parishad and
Collectorate office near Ambedkar centre, he saw auto trolley bearing No. AP20V-5574 which was driven by its driver at high speed and negligently, dashed the motorcycle on which two persons were going and due to that the pillion rider of the motorcycle fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries and the motorcycle was completely damaged and the pillion rider sustained serious head injury and other injuries and the accident was only due to the negligence of the auto trolley driver and from the gathering he came to know that the pillion rider was a medical student in Mamatha Medical college and he informed the same to Sri Nagireddy Goverdhan Reddy working as Senior Assistant in Mamatha Medical
College and on that he came to the spot and shifted the pillion rider and rider to Mamatha
Super Specialty Hospital. This evidence of Pw-6 is fully in support of the allegation of the petitioner that the accident took place due to the negligence of the auto trolley driver. In the cross-examination for respondent No.2 he denied a suggestion that he never witnessed the accident and he never informed Goverdhan Reddy about the accident and Goverdhan
Reddy never shifted the injured to the hospital. He denied a suggestion that accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. Except giving suggestions, which are denied, nothing important is elicited from Pw-6 in support of plea of the respondent No.2. Ex.A-44/Charge sheet is filed against auto trolley driver stating that he was responsible for the accident and therefore he was liable for punishment for the offence u/sec 338 IPC. Perusal of Ex.44/Charge sheet goes to show that the Investigating Officer collected the evidence of number of persons including eyewitnesses and came to conclusion that auto trolley driver was only responsible for the accident, but not the rider of the motorcycle. If the rider of the motorcycle was responsible for the accident, the
Investigating Officer would have filed the charge sheet only against him, but not against the driver of the auto trolley. Respondent No.2 has not adduced the evidence of any eyewitness to the accident or at least driver of the auto trolley to prove its plea. Therefore on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record this court is of the opinion that petitioner adduced prima-facie evidence to prove that accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of auto trolley by its driver and in that accident only petitioner sustained the alleged injuries. Hence Issue No.1 and 2 are held accordingly and in favour of the petitioner.
9. ISSUE NO.3 and 4: It is the plea of the petitioner that 1st respondent is owner of the auto trolley and it was insured with 2nd respondent and policy was in subsistence at the time of accident. Record shows that 1st respondent was set exparte and remained exparte. 2nd respondent in its counter has not denied the fact that vehicle belongs to 1st respondent. In its counter 2nd respondent has not categorically stated that the vehicle was not insured with it. But it is stated that respondent No.2 denies the plea of the petitioner that vehicle was insured with it. Ex.A-45 is Photostat copy of insurance policy of the offending vehicle auto trolley. The evidence on record shows that Advocate for respondent No.2 did not raise any objection when Photostat copy of insurance policy was marked. There is no cross-examination to Pw-1 on the correctness of Ex.A-45. On the other hand respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence oral or documentary to prove that Ex.A-45 is not issued by it. Therefore Ex.A-45 clearly establishes that 1st respondent is owner of the offending vehicle and it was insured with 2nd respondent and policy was in subsistence at the time of accident. It is already held by this court on the Issue No.1 and 2 that the accident took place only due to the negligence of the auto trolley driver. It is the plea of the 2nd respondent in its counter that the driver of the auto trolley was not having valid driving license at the time of accident. No doubt petitioner has not filed the driving license of the petitioner. But burden is on the 2nd respondent to prove that plea. But 2nd respondent neither examined the driver of the auto trolley nor summoned relevant record from the concerned RTA nor summoned 1st respondent to produce the driving license of his driver, to prove that driver had no valid driving license at the time of accident. Admittedly
Ex.A-44/Charge sheet is not filed for the offence either u/sec 180 or 181 of M.V. Act.
Therefore this court is of the opinion that 2nd respondent failed to discharge its burden that driver had no valid driving license. Therefore respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
10.It is the plea of the petitioner that he joined Mamatha Medical College,
Khamman in MBBS under management quota and he paid Rs.20,00,000/- to the management of Mamatha Medical College towards tuition fee for four years and he was residing in the hostel connected to the hospital and for that also he paid Rs.75,000/- and other amounts and after the accident he discontinued his studies from 13.03.2009 and he requested the management for the return of fee of Rs.20,00,000/- after deducting expenses by that time, but the management refused to return the amount quoting rules. It is also the plea of the petitioner that he incurred medical expenditure of Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.50,000/- towards attendant, lodging and boarding charges and he was put to loss of Rs.20,00,000/- due to loss of his medical career and he is entitled to Rs.20,00,000/- towards loss of future earnings and he is also entitled to
Rs.2,75,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.2,25,000/- for continuing partial disability and other amounts. On the other hand the plea of the 2nd respondent as seen from its counter and also as per written arguments is that petitioner never incurred medical expenditure of
Rs.4,00,000/- and the plea of the petitioner that if he could not met with the accident he would have completed MBBS and Post Graduation and settled as medical practitioner and due to the accident he was forced to discontinue his studies and he lost his medical career is only imaginary and petitioner is not entitled to any compensation much less Rs.50,00,000/-.
Petitioner relied upon his evidence as Pw-1 and also on the evidence of Pw-4 and on the Ex.A-42, A-43, A-51, A-52 and A-54 documents to prove that he joined
Mamatha Medical College in MBBS under Management quota and he paid Rs.20,00,000/- to the medical college and on 13.03.2009 he discontinued his studies and he did not get back that amount. The Counter of Respondent No.2 and the cross-examination of Pw-1 to 4 go to show that respondent No.2 has not denied the plea of the petitioner that he joined
Mamatha Medical College in MBBS under management quota and he paid Rs.20,00,000/- to the management. Pw-1 deposed to the contents of the petition about the joining of
MBBS in Mamatha Medical College under management quota and the payment of
Rs.20,00,000/- to the management and about the non return of that amount.
Pw-4 in his evidence in chief stated as “I am working as the Lay Secretary of
Mamatha Medical College, Khammam. I look the affairs of the said medical college including administration, admissions and other works of the college for the past several years. I know the petitioner in this case namely P.Likith Reddy who was student in MBBS in our collage. The petitioner was admitted in our college in the management quota in
August 2005. Before it the father of the petitioner approached the management who directed me to provide the Admission for the petitioner in MBBS. The estimated cost of the admission was Rs.21,80,000/- for the course including all the fees except the fees to be paid to the university and hostel charges and referred tuition fee Rs.60,000/- was paid on behalf of the petitioner through demand draft and the petitioner was admitted in the course for starting from August 2005. The petitioner used to stay in the Hostel after paying the necessary fees in addition to the examination fee Rs.2,000/- and purchasing of 1st year books approximately Rs.25,000/-. The college record showed that the petitioner was studying well.
On 22.04.2006 I was informed that the petitioner met with a road accident and suffered severe injuries and head injury. The petitioner was admitted in the College Super
Specialty Hospital. The petitioner was unconscious and the condition of the petitioner was critical who needed immediate intensive critical care. The petitioner was admitted at the said hospital at Khammam. The petitioner suffered extraordinary injuries particularly in the head with fracture of skull. The petitioner needed emergency surgery. As per the doctor the petitioner needed immediate surgery. I advised the doctor to provide all the necessary treatment since the petitioner was our student. The father of the petitioner who is stated to be at Adilabad was informed. Accordingly Dr.Asadharan conducted the surgery which went on for about hours. The doctors opined that there was a need to refer the patient to the higher medical institute at Hyderabad. At the request of the father of the petitioner I provided the Ambulance. I was informed that the petitioner was admitted in Yashoda
Hospital at Hyderabad.
After about four months the petitioner came to college and attended the annual examination of 1st year MBBS. However the petitioner was not able to do well in the examination due to incomplete recovery. Again the petitioner wrote the same examination two more times but could not succeed due to ill health. Since the petitioner was unable to go on with the studies the petitioner discontinued the studies and TC was issued to him, though the father of the petitioner requested for the refund of the paid amount the amount could not be refunded as per rules. The Hostel fee was also paid, but could not be refunded”.
From the evidence of Pw-1 and Pw-4 and from the Ex.A-42, 43,51,52 and 54 documents, it is very very clear that the estimated fee was Rs.21,80,800/- for the MBBS course including all the fee, except the fee to be paid to the university and hostel charges and even petitioner paid Rs.20,00,000/- to the management through demand draft and he was admitted in to the college and he was staying in the hostel and petitioner purchased books worth Rs.25,000/- for the 1st year course and the petitioner requested the management for the return of Rs.20,00,000/- after deducting relevant fees and expenses, but management refused to return the amount and it was not returned. The cross- examination of Pw-1 and 2 go to show that nothing important is elicited from them to prove that petitioner never paid Rs.20,00,000/- to the Mamatha Medical College management and the management never refused to return the amount. So out rightly it is proved that petitioner joined Mamatha Medical college under Management quota and he paid
Rs.20,00,000/- at a time to the management and joined medical college and after the accident and after discontinued the studies from 13.03.2009, the petitioner requested the management for return of amount, but they did not return the amount. It is also proved that petitioner was residing in Hostel and for that heavy amount was paid and he purchased books worth Rs.25,000/- and apart from that he incurred some other money towards hostel fee etc. Due to accident, the petitioner could not continue his studies and even Pw-3 advised him to discontinue the studies and on that he discontinued MBBS course and confined to the house. The evidence on record shows that after discontinuing MBBS course the petitioner has not joined any other course in any college and he is living in the house idle and he is not prosecuting any studies. The oral and documentary evidence on record particularly the evidence of Pw-1 and 2 and Pw-3 go to show that petitioner could not continue his studies due to the giddiness, reeling, vomiting, fits and severe headache due to the severe brain injury. The evidence shows that petitioner tried his level best over a period of three years to continue his education and MBBS first year and he wrote examination thrice, but he could succeed as he could not read the books properly and could not prepare well for the examination. So the evidence on record is very very clear that under unavoidable circumstances and on the medical advise only the petitioner discontinued his MBBS course.
11.The evidence of Pw-2 and 3 is very very important. Because they are the
Neuro Surgeons at Mamatha Super Specialty Hospital, Khammam and at Somajiguda
Yashoda Hospital and they are the persons who conducted surgeries on the petitioner and they are the persons who treated the petitioner and especially Pw-3 is the doctor who provided follow up treatment to the petitioner and on his advise only the petitioner discontinued his studies . Therefore this court is of the opinion that it is relevant to extract the evidence of Pw-2 and 3 in chief as it is for proper appreciation of the contention of the petitioner regarding the injuries he received and regarding the medical treatment he availed and regarding the surgeries conducted on him and regarding the medical expenses he incurred and regarding the follow up treatment he availed and the bed rest he was advised and his incapacity to prosecute studies and the inconvenience and pain to which he was subjected to and also about his future disability etc.
The evidence of Pw-2 in chief is as follows:- “I am a consultant Neuro Surgeon and Professor in Medicine having done my
Mch. I am working as a super specialist at Mamata Super Specialty Hospital, Khammam. I know the petitioner in this case namely P.Likith Reddy who was under my treatment. The petitioner was admitted on 22.04.2006 at about 8.30 pm with head injury and injuries on other parts of the body alleged to have been sustained in a road traffic accident on the same day at Khammam. The petitioner was unconscious and the condition of the petitioner was too critical who needed immediate intensive critical care. The petitioner was admitted in our Hospital at Khammam. The petitioner is a student of our medical college doing his
MBBS course. CT Scan and other necessary medical tests were done. The petitioner suffered extraordinary injuries particularly in both temporal regions. It was diagnosed that the petitioner was suffered right temporal injury with haemotoma with fracture of right temporal bone, left frontal temporal parietal contusion and hemorrhage. The petitioner needed emergency surgery. However after taking necessary anesthetic precautions immediately surgery was essential failing which the life of the petitioner was at risk since there was clot of blood in the brain which would cause hindrance of the function of the brain and other parts of the body. I decided to conduct the surgery having regard to the critical condition of the patient. The father of the petitioner who is stated to be at Adilabad was informed who already consented for surgery. The petitioner was under by observation throughout night. After following the necessary clinical procedure I conducted surgery in the right temporal craniotomy involving removal of clotted blood in the right side of the brain. The surgery went on for about five hours under the supervision of a Senior
Anesthesia. After conducting the surgery for treatment of other said injuries I felt that there is a need to refer the patient to a higher medical institute at Hyderabad. At request of the father of the petitioner I spoke to Dr.Ranganadhan who is a Senior Consultant Neuro
Surgeon at Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. I explained him in detail over telephone. The petitioner was advised to be shifted to Hyderabad. At the request of the father of the petitioner I provided the Ambulance and two doctors who accompanied the petitioner to
Hyderabad. Necessary precautions like ventilator, IV fluid and other necessary medicines and a nurse was also provided for assistance.”
The evidence of Pw-3 in chief is as follows:- “I am a Consultant Neuro Surgeon having done my Mch from all India Institute of Medical Sciences. I am working as a Super Specialist at Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda,
Hyderabad. I know the petitioner in this case P.Likith Reddy who as under my treatment at the said hospital. He is present here to day. The petitioner was admitted on 23.04.2006 at about 5.00 pm with head injury and injuries on other parts of the body alleged to have been sustained in a road traffic accident on 22.04.2006 at about 8.30 pm at Khammam. The petitioner was initially treated at Mamatha Super Specialty Hospital at Khammam, before the petitioner came to my hospital, I received a telephonic call from the said hospital at
Khammam wherein Dr.Asadharan spoke to me and gave the details of the head injury, regarding the emergency surgery done there as there was intra cerebral haematomma and the treatment given there. The petitioner was made fit to travel for shifting him to
Hyderabad in an Ambulance with ventilator accompanied by two specialist doctors and one nurse having regard to the critical condition of the petitioner.
As soon as the petitioner was admitted at my hospital, I perused the CT Scan, the reports for various medical tests done at Khammam and the discharge summary. The condition of the petitioner was critical and he was unconscious. He had weakness of right side limbs. The petitioner suffered head injury at right temporal region and at left temporal frontal region. There was a fracture in right temporal bone with haemotoma. It is diagnosed that the petitioner had suffered right parietal extradural haematoma already operated at Khammam, examined by Neuro Surgeon. His CT Scan of brain (23-04-2006) showed intra parenchymal haematoma in bi frontal left temporal and right parietal lobes with perilesinal edema and sub arachnoid extension in left sylvan fissure and inter hemispheric fissure/culviliear hyperdensity along right parietal convexity – Suggestive of subdural bleed / extra calvarial soft issue swelling seen along right temporal and parietal regions / comnumited fracture right parietal bone with pneumocephalus. After pre- anesthetic check up he was taken up for surgery.
The parents of the petitioner who were accompanying the petitioner were explained the critical condition, seriousness and the probable consequences of the head injury who consented for further treatment including surgery. At that stage since the injury was to the brain there was likelihood of loss of speech or any other loss of functioning of some parts of the body. Even the survival of the petitioner was at risk. On the same evening at about 7.00 pm I conducted Neuro Surgery under the able assistance of the
Anesthetist Dr.Laxma Reddy. During the surgery, left falconer's craniotomy + Evacuation of left temporal + Frontal basal contusion + evacuation of large left frontal intra cerebral hematoma done under General Anesthesia. The surgery lasted for about four years. It was surely a high risk and major surgery. After the surgery the petitioner was shifted to
Intensive Neuro Care Unit for post surgical care. The patient was given IV fluids, whole blood transfusion ( O +ve), mechanical ventilator, oxygen inhalation. Necessary medicines were given including antibiotics, pain killers and other supportive treatment. Even after (10) days of surgery since the petitioner was aggressive and restless, he was examined by
Psychiatrist on 02.05.2006. He was diagnosed to have bipolar Affective disorder. The petitioner was in intensive care for about (15) days.
On 11.05.2006 the petitioner gained consciousness and was shifted to special room from intensive care unit. Slowly the petitioner started responding and also regained the speech. The petitioner was discharged on 13.05.2006. At the time of discharge necessary advise was given for follow up treatment for about two years. The petitioner was advised to take bed rest for six months. Again the petitioner was admitted in my hospital on 07.03.2007 as the petitioner was suffering post traumatic epilepsy with generalized convulsion. Necessary treatment was given and the petitioner was discharged on 10.03.2007. Again the petitioner was given follow up treatment with necessary advise. The petitioner was advised to come up for review every month. Physiotherapy was also advised.
Even now the petitioner is coming up for follow up treatment once in three months. The petitioner complains headache and is unable to take stress full job. It is also complained that now and then the petitioner gets irritated and some times gets giddiness/reeling effect. The petitioner was advised not to give strain to the brain and further advised not to give mental stress and not to do hard work. Since the petitioner was doing his MBBS which involves lot of mental stress and strain, the petitioner was advised to change the academic course and to discontinue the MBBS Course. Having regard to the above condition of the petitioner, even in future the petitioner would not be able to undertake any stress full study or job at least for some more years. The petitioner shall have to use medicines through his life. The petitioner is also advised not to drive any vehicle and not to undertake any type of job either temporarily or permanently which involves decision making. The petitioner is advised not to be lonely at any time and has to be necessarily accompanied by a person as the petitioner need constant watch on him”.
12.From the evidence of Pw-1, Pw-2 and Pw-3 it is very clear that a surgery on the head was done by Pw-2 at Mamatha Super Specialty Hospital in Khammam and from there Pw-2 spoke to Pw-3 about the petitioner's condition and petitioner was shifted to
Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda, Hyderabad on the advise of Pw-3 and Pw-2 and he was shifted to Hyderabad in an ambulance equipped with A/c ventilator facility accompanied by two specialist doctors and one nurse and the parents and sister and relatives of the petitioner followed the ambulance in a hired car and in Yashoda Hospital all tests were done and CT Scan were taken and after informing the parents of the petitioner that condition of the petitioner was very serious and critical and operation has to be done on the brain and the areas of brain which control the speech and memory power were damaged and survival chances of the petitioner were meager, Pw-3 conducted surgery and that operation went on for about 4 hours and ultimately he was shifted to ICU and he was there in the ICU for about 12-13 days and then he regained his consciousness and regained speech power and then he was shifted to special room and thereafter he was discharged.
The evidence on record is also very clear that Pw-3 also advised for six months bed rest and follow up treatment and again petitioner joined the hospital for the second time on 7.03.20007 and he was discharged on 10.03.2007 and again he was advised three months bed rest and follow up treatment. The evidence of Pw-1 to 3 coupled with Ex.A-2 to A-39 and Ex.A-46, A-50 to A-53 and Ex.C-1 to C-5 very clearly establish about the condition of the petitioner and regarding his admission into both hospitals and the surgeries he undergone and medical expenditure he incurred and the period of bed rest he was advised and the follow up treatment and about his frequently getting headache, giddiness, reeling, sensation, fits and vomiting and about his still getting reeling sensation and giddiness and about loss of partial memory power and his loss of educational career and the fact that still he is using medicines and availing treatment and he has not recovered fully.
Pw-3 categorically stated that petitioner has to use medicines life long and he has to suffer life long partially. The evidence on record is very very clear that petitioner can not drive vehicles and he can not go out side without the attendant and he can not under take manual works and he can not even give more stress and strain to the brain, because of giddiness, fits and headache. So the evidence on record is very very clear that due to the injuries he sustained and particularly the injury to the brain, petitioner suffered a lot and he was put to lot of inconvenience and he has to suffer life long and he has to use medicines throughout his life and he has to suffer partial disability which is regarding change of voice and he gets headache and giddiness and fits, if strain is given to the brain and his privacy is disturbed because he can not go out without the attendant and he can not enjoy his life and he can not drive vehicles and due to the injuries sustained the confidence of the petitioner is lost and his health condition is precarious and he suffered a lot and he has lost his future and throughout his life he has to use medicines. Therefore every contention and every allegation of the petitioner is correct and proved to be true. It may be mentioned herein that cross-examination of Pw-2 and 3 is only formal and only suggestions are given that bills are fabricated and operations were not conducted and like that . But Pw-2 and 3 who are the reputed doctors denied those suggestions and there is nothing on the record to disbelieve their evidence. The evidence of Pw-1 to 3 is supported by voluminous documentary evidence which is exhibited in this case.
13.The evidence on record is very clear that had the petitioner could not met with this accident, he could have completed his prosecuting MBBS and he would have definitely settled as medical practitioner and in that case his future was definitely bright and his earning capacity was also good and therefore the plea of the petitioner that he is entitled to
Rs.20,00,000/- towards loss of career and loss of future earning capacity, has force. This court is of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to Rs.20,00,000/- as claimed. The evidence on record is very clear that petitioner paid Rs.20,00,000/- towards Tuition Fee to the management of Mamatha Medical College and that amount was refused to be returned by the management. The evidence on record shows that for every year tuition fee is four lakhs and odd. Even if the tuition fee for one year is taken out, remaining comes to
Rs.16,00,000/- and that is wasted due to the accident only and therefore petitioner is entitled to that Rs.16,00,000/-. The oral and documentary evidence on record is very very clear that petitioner incurred medical expenditure of Rs.4,00,000 and he incurred transportation charges of Rs.25,000/- as the petitioner was in hospital for considerable period in Yashoda Hospital and number of times he went to Yashoda Hospital for follow up treatment and as he was not permitted to move alone, he was taken to the hospital by his parents or relatives and therefore petitioner is entitled to minimum of Rs.25,000/- towards attendant charges, boarding and lodging charges. When the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner are taken into consideration including surgeries he undergone and tests he undergone and the fact that he took bed rest for months together and the fact that still he is getting headache and vomitings and fits, this court is of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to Rs.2,50,000/- towards pain and suffering. The evidence is very clear that petitioner has to use medicines life long and in future also if strain and stress is given to brain, he would get fits and headache and admittedly he shall not go outside lonely and there shall be a attendant along with him and he can not drive the vehicles and in that way his privacy is taken away and for all those things, this court is of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to another Rs.2,50,000/- towards future inconvenience and future partial liability.
14. So after a careful consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record adduced by the petitioner and after taking into consideration of all the circumstances and on a careful examination of plea of the petitioner and also plea of the respondent No.2, this court is of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to following compensation which is just, proper and adequate.
1.Transportation charges Rs.25,000-00
2.Medical expenses.Rs.4,00,000-00
3.Attendant, Lodging and boarding charges Rs.25,000-00
4.Loss of medical career and loss of future earnings Rs.20,00,000-00
5.Loss of Tuition Fee paid by the petitioner to Mamatha Rs.16,00,000-00 Medical College management or loss of educational expenses.
6.Compensation for pain and suffering and loss of pleasureRs.2,50,000-00
7.Compensation for future inconvenience and pain and future Rs.2,50,000-00 partial disability and future loss of pleasure.
TOTAL Rs.45,50,000-00
So the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.45,50,000/- payable by respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Hence Issue is held accordingly. So Issue
No.3 is held in favour of the petitioner holding that offending vehicle was insured with 2nd respondent and policy was in subsistence at the time of accident and the policy covers the risk of the petitioner.
15.Issue No.4 is held in favour of the petitioner holding that petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.45,50,000/- payable by respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
16. ISSUE NO.5.In the result petition is partly allowed in favour of the petitioner with proportionate cost granting a compensation of Rs.45,50,000/- (Rupees Forty five lakhs and fifty thousand only) with simple interest @ 8.00% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of compensation in the court, payable by respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The time for deposit of compensation, interest and costs is one month from today. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/.
Out of the compensation amount of Rs.45,50,000/- an amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- shall be kept in FDR in the name of the petitioner for a period of two years in any nationalized bank of his choice and he is at liberty to withdraw the interest on the FDR every quarterly or half yearly. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw balance compensation of Rs.25,50,000/- on its deposit.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him. Corrected and pronounced by
me in the open court on this the 2 nd day of April 2012.
Chairman M.A.C.T.-cum- I. Addl.Dist.Judge, FAC: Judge, Family Court-cum- Addl. Dist. & Sessions Court, Adilabad.
Appendix of Evidence.
Witnesses examined.
For petitioner :
Pw-1: P.Likith Reddy Pw-2: Dr.Asadharan Pw-3: Dr.P.Ranganadhan. Pw-4: Ch.Satyanarayan Reddy Pw-5: Nagireddy Goverdhan Reddy Pw-6: Bandari Naveen Kumar
Exhibits Marked:
Ex.A-1: Certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.A-2: Admission Discharge summary/Card of Mamata Super Specialty Hospital, Khammam. Ex.A-3: Certified copy of Medical certificate issued by Yashoda Hospital, Dt: 31.05.2006 Ex.A-4: Admission / Discharge summary issued by Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad, Dt: 23/04/2006. Ex.A-5: Admission / Discharge summary issued by Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad, Dt. 07.03.2007. Ex.A-6: Out patient card issued by Krishna Institute of Medical Science Ltd., KMS Hospital, Hyderabad. Dt. 6.6.2007. Ex.A-7: C.T. Scan of Brain Report issued by Yashoda Hospital,Hyderabad, Dt.23.4.2006 Ex.A-8: C.T. Scan of Brain Report issued by Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, Dt.7.3.2007. Ex.A-9: Medical Prescription of Mamata Super Specialty Hospital, Khammam.,
Dt. 23/4/2006.
Ex.A-10: Medical Prescription of Mamata Super Specialty Hospital, Khammam.,
Dt. 23/4/2006.
Ex.A-11: Medical Prescription of Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad,
Dt. 24/4/2006.
Ex.A-12: Medical Prescription of Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad.
Dt. 13/5/2006.
Ex.A-13: Medical Prescription of Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad. Issued by Dr. Ranganatham Dt. 26/5/2006 Ex.A-14: Medical Prescription of Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad,
Dt. 29/5/2006.
Ex.A-15: Medical Prescription of Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad,
Dt. 11/7/2006.
Ex.A-16: Medical Prescription of Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad,
Dt. 17/7/2006.
Ex.A-17: Medical Prescription of Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad, Dt.26/7/2006 Issued by Dr. Venkatramana. Ex.A-18: Medical Prescription of Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad. Issued by Dr. Ranganatham Dt. 20/10/2006. Ex. A-19: Medical Prescription of Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad. Issued by Dr. Ranganatham Dt. 10/4/2007. Ex.A-20: Medical Prescription of Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad. Issued by Dr. Shekhar Reddy, Dt. 10/4/2007. Ex.A -21: Medical Prescription of Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad. Issued by Dr. Ranganatham Dt. 1/6/2007. Ex.A-22: Medical Prescription of Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad. Issued by Dr. Komal Kumar Dt. 01/8/2007. Ex.A-23: Medical Prescription of Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad. Issued by Dr. Komal Kumar, Dt. 30/8/2007. Ex.A-24: Medical Prescription of Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad. Issued by Dr. Umesh T. Ex.A-25: Medical Prescription of Medinova Hospital, Hyderabad. Issued by Dr.Patnaik, Dt. 29/5/2006. Ex A- 26 to A 28 : Medical Prescription of Dr. Prasad Rao, Nero of Shoriff Memorial Hospital, Hyderabad. Dt. 17/3/2006, 12/8/2006 and 17/3/2007. Ex.A-29: Medical Prescription Dt. 11/8/2006 Issued by Dr. Sunitha Shekhar Reddy. Ex.A-30: Skin treatment Summary of Dr, Madhavi Latha, Hyderabad. Dt. 11/8/2006. Ex.A- 31 to 33: Medical Prescription of T.V.N. Murthy, Dt. 25/9/2006 and 29/5/2006. Ex.A- 34 and A-35 : Medical Prescription of Dr. A. Shekhar Reddy, Dt. 2/6/2007 and 28/7/2007.
Ex.A-36 : Doctor consultation receipts (10) for Rs. 1900/- Ex.A-37 : Medical bills (30) for Rs 19442/- (Nineteen thousand and four hundred forty two only) Ex.A-38: Bill of Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad for Rs.2,06,883/- Ex.A-39: Bill of Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital for Rs.26,223/- Ex.A-40: Attested copy of SSC Certificate. Ex.A-41: Attested copy of Board of Intermediate Certificate. Ex.A-42: Estimation Certificate of Mamatha Education Society Institute, Khammam for Rs.21,80,800/- Ex.A-43: Pay receipt of Mamatha Education Society Institution Khammam for Rs.11,00,000/- and Rs.9,00,000 total Rs.20,00,000/-. Ex.A-44: Certified copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.A-45: Xerox copy of Insurance Policy. Ex.A-46 and A-47:CT Scan films issued by Mamatha Super Specialty Hospital,Khammam Ex.A-48: MRI Films issued by Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.A-49: X-Ray film issued by Medinova Hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.A-50: Radiology film issued by Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.A-51: Transfer Certificate issued by Mamatha Medical College, Khammam. Ex.A-52: Study and conduct certificate issued by Mamatha Medical College, Khammam. Ex.A-53: Medical bills (10) for Rs.5,108/- Ex.A-54: Mamatha Medical College Hostel Bill for Rs.75,000/-
Ex.C-1: Certificate issued by Dr.P.Ranganadham. Ex.C-2: Eight (8) Medical prescriptions issued by Dr.P.Ranganadham. Ex.C-3: Blood Test Report. Ex.C-4: Doctor Consultation receipts issued by Dr.P.Ranganadham. Ex.C-5: Medical Bills issued by Medinova Medicals and Surgicals, Hyderabad.
Chairman M.A.C.T.-cum- I. Addl.Dist.Judge, FAC: Judge, Family Court-cum- Addl. Dist. & Sessions Court, Adilabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM-
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE :: ADILABAD.
Present : Sri N. Ananda Rao, B.Sc, LL.M, Chairman, M.A.C.T. -cum- I-Addl. District Judge, Adilabad. FAC:Judge, Family court-cum-Addl
District Judge, Adilabad.
Monday the 2nd day of April 2012.
O.P. No. 283 of 2008.
Between :
P.Likith Reddy S/o. Mahender Reddy, Age 22 years, Occ: Student of M.B.B.S., Mamatha Medical College, Khammam, R/o. Plot.No.37, Kailashnagar, Adilabad, District Adilabad.
...Petitioner
// AND //
1. Mr.Ch.Hanumantha Rao S/o. Bhaskar Rao, Age: Not know, Major, Occ: Owner of Auto Trolley bearing No. AP20V-5574, R/o. D.No.4-1-57, Rotarynagar, Khammam.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd, Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Khammam. (Policy Cover Note No.461462 valid from 18.09.2005 to 17.09.2006)
....Respondents
Claim for:This petition is filed by the petitioner against Respondents No.1 and 2 U/Sec.166 (1) (a) of M.V. Act for a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident on 22.04.2006 at 8.00 pm at Ambedkar Centre near Collectorate in Khammam town.
Valuation: A court fee of Rs.49,360/ paid under Rule 475(1) (b) A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989.
Petition presented on : 16-06-2008
Petition Registered on : 19-06-2008
This petition has been finally heard on 01.02.2012 in the presence of Sri.A.Amarender Reddy, Advocate, for the petitioner and Sri. S.Raja Ram, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 is set exparte and remained exparte and having stood for consideration till this day, this court both order and decree as follows :
1.That, the petition of the petitioner be and is hereby partly allowed in favour of the petitioner with proportionate cost granting a compensation of Rs.45,50,000/- (Rupees Forty five lakhs and fifty thousand only) with simple interest @ 8.00% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of compensation in the court, payable by respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
2.That, the time for deposit of compensation, interest and costs is one month from today.
3.That, out of the compensation amount of Rs.45,50,000/- an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- shall be kept in FDR in the name of the petitioner for a period of two years in any nationalized bank of his choice and he is at liberty to withdraw the interest on the FDR every quarterly or half yearly. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw balance compensation of Rs.25,50,000/- on its deposit.
4.That, the respondent No.1 and 2 also pay a sum of Rs.51,497/- to the petitioner towards the costs of the petition.
5.That, the Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only).
Given under my hand and seal of the court on this the 2 nd day of April, 2012.
Chairman, MACT-Cum-District Judge, FAC: Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl. Dist. and Sessions Court, Adilabad.
COST OF THE PETITION
Sl.No.For PetitionerAmount Rs. For RespondentAmount Rs.
1Stamp on petition44,860=00Stamp on petition-- 2=00 2Stamp on powerStamp on power2=00 3Stamp on Exhibits3=00Stamp on Exhibits-- 4Service of Process132=00Service of Process-- 5Advocate's Fee1,000=00Advocate's Fee-- 6Commissioners Fee5,500=00Commissioners Fee--
Total: Total :
51,497=00 2=00
Chairman, MACT-Cum-District Judge, FAC: Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl. Dist. and Sessions Court, Adilabad.