1
BEFORE THE V ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NELLORE.
FRIDAY, the 11th day of May, 2012.
Present:- Sri N.Basavaiah,B.Sc.,B.L.,
Chairman,
V Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal,
N e l l o r e.
***
ORIGINAL PETITION No.109/2009
Syed Hidayathullah ...Claimant
Vs.
1. Md. Sarwar Ali,
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Brindavanam, Nellore. …Respondents
This petition coming on 7.5.2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.V.Suresh, advocate for the petitioner and of Sri M.Ravindra Reddy, advocate for the 2nd respondent and the respondent No.1 having been remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal made the following:-
O R D E R
The petitioner, who had injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident, filed this petition under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- against the respondents, 1 and 2, the owner and the insurer, of the Tata Indica Car bearing
Registration No.A.P.20/C.7928, respectively.
2)The case of the injured/petitioner, who is a resident of
Nellore and who was studying III year B.Tech., (Civil) in
Muffakham Jah College of Engineering and Technology, Banjara
Hills, Hyderabad, is that on 18.5.2007 at about 4-00 a.m., he as a rider and his friend, Santhosh, as a pillion rider started to proceed on a motor cycle bearing Registration No.A.P.11/G.5415 from Sanjeevreddi Nagar, Hyderabad to Medak in order to see a 2 church there and when they reached Massipet village outskirts on
NH-5 road at about 6-30 a.m., one Tata Indica Car bearing
Regn.No.A.P.30/C.7928, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing any horn, came in the opposite direction and hit the motor cycle with the result that he and his friend, Santhosh, fell down on the road and had injuries and that he was shifted to Sai Bhavani Super Speciality Hospital, main road, Shapur nagar, Hyderabad for medical treatment and was later shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. A case in Crime
No.86/07 was registered against the Car driver by the S.H.O.,
Chegunta Police Station, Medak District. According to the petitioner he is aged 28 years. He claimed a compensation of
Rs.25,00,000/- under different heads.
3)The first respondent, owner of the Car, is made set exparte. The second respondent, insurer, filed its counter denying the above case of the petitioner and stating that the petitioner has to prove his case as set out in his petition, that the petitioner has to prove that the driver of the Tata Indica Car was possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the Car and that the Car has got valid permit on the date of accident, that the accident occurred not due to the fault of the Car driver and it occurred due to the fault of the petitioner himself, that the petitioner has no driving licence to drive the motor cycle and that therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Its alternative plea is that the quantum of compensation claimed is highly excessive.
4)On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:
1)Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in injuries to the claimant, and if so, was it due to the rash and negligent driving of 3 the offending vehicle (Tata Indica Car) bearing Registration No.A.P.30/C.7928?
2)Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation and if so, what quantum and what the liability of the respondents?
3)To what relief?
5)PWs.1 to 5 are examined and Exs.A1 to A29 are marked, on behalf of the petitioner. No oral evidence is adduced on behalf of R2. Ex.B1, copy of
Insurance Policy, is marked on behalf of the second respondent.
6)Perused the written arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioner.
ISSUE No.1:
7)On this issue, we have the evidence of PW1, the injured petitioner, besides other evidence. PW1 deposed in his chief examination by affidavit supporting his case set out in his petition. In his cross examination, he deposed that the motor cycle involved in the accident belongs to his friend, Santhosh. He denied that he had no driving licence to ride the motor cycle and that the accident occurred due to his fault and there was no negligence on the part of the car driver of R1. Except the above suggestion, which is denied by PW1, nothing is brought out from his cross examination from which it may be possible to hold that 4 the accident occurred due to the fault of the petitioner himself on he contributed his negligence to the accident or that it occurred not due to the fault of the car driver. There is no evidence adduced on behalf of
R2 contra to the above evidence of PW1 given on oath.
The evidence of PW1 remained unrebutted. Ex.A2 is the Wound Certificate issued by the Medical Officer at
Sai Bhavani Super Speciality Hospital and it shows that
PW1 had injuries in the said accident. There is no dispute that the petitioner had injuries in the said accident. The police investigation reveals that the accident occurred due to the fault of the car driver.
This is a case of no evidence on behalf of R2, insurer.
The unrebutted evidence of PW1 coupled with the police investigation and Ex.A2 goes to establish that the accident occurred due to the fault of the car driver and that PW1 had injuries in the said accident. Since no evidence is adduced on behalf of R2 and since I hold that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the lorry of R1, the decisions in (1) K.Narahari Vs.
U.Suresh Kumar and another, 2000(3) ALT 627 (Division
Bench), (2) P.Purushotham Reddy V. Managing Director,
PATC, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, 2000 (6) ALD 104 (Division
Bench), and (3) Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation V. Nand Kishore and others, AIR 2001 5
RAJASTHAN 334, cited by the petitioner's counsel in his written arguments needs no demonstration. This issue is thus answered in favour of the petitioner against the respondent No.2.
ISSUE No.2:
There is no dispute that the offending 8) vehicle was insured with R2 by R1, as per the original of
Ex.B1. In view of my finding on issue No.1, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation under Sec.166 of the M.V.Act against the respondents 1 and 2, jointly and severally. The only question to be seen is with regard to the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the petitioner.
PW1 deposed in his chief examination by 9) affidavit that at the time of accident, he was studying
B.Tech., Course in Muffakham Jah College of
Engineering and Technology, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and already, he passed Bachelor of Computer
Applications Course (BCA), that he had received four grievous injuries and one simple injury, that after the accident on 18.5.2007, he was shifted to Sai Bhavani
Super Speciality Hospital, Main road, Shapur Nagar,
Hyderabad, that surgery was conducted on his right leg and steel plates were inserted in his right leg to set right the fracture and he was discharged from the 6 hospital on 19.5.2007, that he spent about 96,954/- towards medical expenses in the said hospital for one day and on 19.5.2007, he was shifted to Apollo
Hospital, Hyderabad and wound debridement and external fixation on right tibia under general anaesthesia was done on 19.5.2007 in Apollo Hospitals,
Hyderabad and another operation was conducted on his right ankle on 25.5.2007 and steel plates and screws were inserted in his right leg, that another surgery was conducted on his right leg ankle portion and pin fixation on right 1st metatarsal was done on 1.6.2007, that right foot wound debridement and SSG was done on 13.6.2007 and he was discharged from the hospital on 11.7.2007, that he spent about Rs.3,36,542-87 ps towards medical expenses while taking treatment in the above hospital from 19.5.2007 to 11.7.2007, that he was again admitted in the above hospital on 12/8/07 for removal of external fixator in his right leg and transcacalcaneal pin right ankle with above knee synthetic cast application under short general anaesthesia was done on 13.8.2007 and he was discharged on 14.8.2007, that he was again admitted in the hospital on 13.9.2007 for removal of screws which were inserted in his right ankle, and screws were removed and he was discharged from the hospital on 7 15.9.2007, that after discharge from the Apollo
Hospitals, he had undergone physiotherapy treatment under Dr. Y.Balaram in Surya Physio Therapy and Pain
Relief Clinic, Nellore from 1.3.2008 to 28.2.2009 for about 12 months and the above said Doctor received
Rs.72,000/- at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month from him, that he spent Rs.79,977/- towards medical expenses as outpatient in the Apollo Hospital, that in total, he spent Rs.6,88,262/- towards medical expenses, that his father is working as A.S.I. In IV town Police
Station, Nellore, that his father submitted an application along with medical bills and necessary certificates relating to the treatment given to him for the period from 19.5.2007 to 11.7.2007 for
Rs.3,36,542-87 to the Director of Medical Education,
A.P., Hyderabad through the Superintendent of Police,
Nellore to reimburse the medical expenses and the
Director of Medical Education who scrutinized the bills allowed reimbursement of Rs.67,500/- only to his father on 24.11.2007 and as such, he is claiming the compensation of Rs.6,20,762/- towards medical expenses after deducting the above amount, that he was confined to bed for a period of five months, that he cannot walk properly due to fracture of both bones of his right leg and he cannot stand for long time, that he 8 cannot squat on the floor by bending his both legs and he is limping and thus, he became permanently disabled, that he passed the physical test for Sub-
Inspector of Police examination and qualified for written test for S.I. of Police examination, that he also prepared for Government service examination and he had qualified for main examination in Group-I A.P.P.S.C.
Examination and he also passed preliminary examination of Group-I, that in 2005, for Deputy Jailer
Services examination, he qualified for written test after completing the physical test, that he was also preparing for UPSC examinations, that he also passed preliminary examination conducted by the Staff Selection
Commission in 2007 for the combined graduate level and that unfortunately, he met with an accident and as such, he was unable to attend the Union Public Service
Commission examination on 20.5.2007 and that he lost the above mentioned posts permanently and lost his employment opportunities. In his cross examination, he deposed that he did not complete his B.Tech., course and he discontinued his studies after the accident. He deposed that he did not file any document into Court to show that he discontinued his studies during the third year B.Tech., course itself, that he failed in the test conducted for the post of S.I. and he 9 has not passed the Group-I main examination and that he did not attend any interview as he had not passed main examinations. He denied that he completed his
B.Tech., course, that he made a double claim regarding the medical expenses, such as deposit amount and bill amount without deducting the deposits, that his evidence that he had permanent disability is false and that all the injuries he had in the accident are healed and he has been doing all his works as he was doing prior to the accident. Ex.A2, the Wound Certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Sai Bhavani Super
Speciality Hospital, shows that PW1 was examined in the above hospital on 18.5.2007 and that PW1 had the following injuries:-
1) Blunt injury to head and laceration over forehead.
2) Fracture shaft femur.
3) fracture comminuted compound Gr.II lateral
4) Fracture shaft tibia- compound -Gr.II communites.
5) Crush injury right foot.
10)PW2, Dr.C.Pavankumar, Ortho Surgeon, deposed that PW1 was admitted in Sai Bhavani Super
Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad on 18.5.2007 with the 10 injuries mentioned in Ex.A2, that operations were conducted on PW1 there, that on the request of the attendant of the patient, PW1 was discharged on 19.5.2007 from the above hospital, that Ex.A2 was issued by their hospital and that Sl.Nos.1 to 14 of
Ex.A26 (medical bills) were issued by their hospital authorities besides Ex.A2, A20 and A21. In his cross examination, he admitted that he has not given treatment to PW1 and that as per Ex.A2, A20 and A21, one Dr. Veeraji treated PW1. He admitted that he was not working in the above hospital by the date of the admission of PW1. He denied that he is not competent to say that Ex.A26 (medical bills) was issued by their hospital.
11)PW3, Dr.Jayaramachander Pingle, Senior
Ortho Surgeon, Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, deposed that PW1 was treated with wound debridement and external fixation right tibia on 19.5.2007, that on 25.5.2007, screw fixation of right ankle was done and
Transcalcaneal steinmann pin insertion was applied, that debridement of right foot was done on 1.6.2007 and skin grafting, on 13.6.2007, that PW1 was discharged on 11.7.2007, that PW1 readmitted in the hospital on 12.8.2007 for removal of external fixation and it was removed on 13.8.2007 and PW1 was 11 discharged on 14.8.2007, that PW1 was again readmitted in the hospital on 13.9.2007 for removal of screw from right ankle and etc., and he was discharged on 15.9.2007 after removal of the above screws on 14.9.2007, that he saw PW1 on 9.7.2009 and certified that as a result of the injuries sustained, PW1 had 40% disability and the injuries are grievous in nature, that
Exs.A16 to A18, discharge summaries, and Ex.A21, A25 and the serial numbers 15 to 191, bunch of medical bills in Ex.A26, were issued by their hospital authorities, that Ex.A29 was issued by him, that PW1 requires further surgery for removal of implants and connection of toes of right foot and that the approximate cost of it will be Rs.60,000/-. In his cross examination, he deposed that general condition of the patient was better but there was delayed union of right tibia fracture and that the fracture took further month for reunion. He denied that the extent of disability of 40% is now reduced. He admitted that he has not examined
PW1 clinically and that Ex.A26 medical bills were not countersigned by him and they were countersigned by the R.M.O. He denied that his evidence regarding the percentage of disability of PW1 and the amount required for further surgery is incorrect. He admitted 12 that the quality of implants used by them is of high quality.
12)PW4/Dr.K.Narenthranath, R.M.O., Apollo
Hospitals, Hyderabad, deposed that Exs.A23, 24, 25 are issued by their hospital, that the medical bills from serial Nos.15 to 191 in Ex.A26 were issued by their hospital towards medical bills and hospitalization and that Ex.A29 is an estimate of further surgery required on right foot and is also issued by their hospital. He denied that his evidence is false and that he is giving evidence to help PW1.
PW5/Dr.Y.Balaram, Physiotherapist, deposed 13) that PW1 took treatment from 1.3.2008 to 28.2.2009 for right leg mobilisation passive and active movement strengthening exercise etc., and that he received
Rs.72,000/- from PW1 at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month and that Ex.A28 was issued by him. He denied that PW1, after treatment, is totally recovered and that the receipts for Rs.72,000/- were issued by him to help
PW1. That is the material oral evidence available on record.
The advocate for the petitioner relied upon 14) the following decisions. (1) In S.Achuthan V. M.Gopal and another, 2003 ACJ 1210 (Madras High Court), the injured, aged 29 years, a practicing advocate with four 13 years standing has become unfit to continue his profession and his marriage prospects have been diminished and the injured lost memory due to depression of left temporal bone and the Doctors have certified physical disablement of 70 per cent and neuro disablement of 30 per cent. In the above circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras allowed Rs.2,00,000/- for future medical expenses,
Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of proper marital alliance,
Rs.3,00,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.5,00,000/- for permanent disability and Rs.17,00,000/- for loss of earning capacity, and enhanced the award of the tribunal from Rs.24,54,617 to Rs.35,74,617. (2)In
B.Imtiaz Ahamed V. G.Banumathi and another, 2003
ACJ 142 (Madras), the injured, aged 19 years, suffered disability of 15 per cent in hip movement, 40 per cent in respect of left leg and 25 per cent in urology system .
Steel rod of cycle seat on which the injured was riding penetrated his stomach and urethra in urinary bladder was cut to the extent of 2 cm. and the injured lost his entire urology system. The injured has to insert a tube in his penis every day to take out urine and injured cannot do any work in his life and cannot have a marital life and the injured was to undergo another surgery to implant some equipment and without that equipment, 14 he cannot pass urine in normal course. In those circumstances, the award amount of Rs.5,00,000/- given by the Tribunal was enhanced by the appellate
Court to Rs.13,60,000/-. (3) In Rayapati Venkateswara
Rao V. Mantai Sambasiva Rao and another, 2001 ACJ 2105, (A.P.) the injured was a lorry cleaner prior to the accident. He received injuries in the accident to his right leg and operations were conducted to his right leg and steel rods were inserted. The Doctor certified that injured sustained 20 to 25% physical disability and that the injured cannot perform his duties as a cleaner as he was performing prior to the accident as injured has to use a stick to walk. In those circumstances, His
Lordship observed that injured cannot perform the same duties as he was performing on the date of accident and as such, the injured lost his cent percent earning capacity and is entitled for 100 percent compensation and awarded Rs.1,11,421/- as compensation. (4) In Lata Wadhwa and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2001 ACJ 1735 (Supreme Court), it is held at Para 13 “In case of pecuniary damages, - loss of earning or earning capacity, medical, hospital and nursing expenses, loss of matrimonial prospects, if proved, are required to be considered. In the case of non-pecuniary losses, loss of expectation of life, loss of 15 amenities or capacity for enjoying life, loss of impairment of physiological functions, impairment or loss of anatomical structures or body tissues, pain and suffering and mental suffering are to be considered.
But, for arriving at a particular figure on each of the aforesaid heads, the claimant is duty bound to produce relevant material, on the basis of which a determination could be made, as to what would be just compensation.” There is no dispute with regard to the above proposition of law. In New India Assurance
Company Limited Vs. Anuj Sharma and others, 2007 ACJ 640 (Delhi High Court), the Doctor who treated the injured and issued disability certificate, was examined and cross examined. The contention of the Insurance
Company in that case that without a specific disability certificate from a Government hospital, no compensation on account of disability should have been granted by the Tribunal, was rejected by his Lordship.
In the above case, the injured had been cleared for appointment as program Analyst in USA and was waiting for clearance of VISA. I am unable to understand how the above decisions can be made applicable to the facts of the present case as the injured in the above cases cited by the petitioner's counsel were earning members. In M.Yadagiri Reddy 16 (V) K.Rama and another, 2006 ACJ 186,it is held that 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses in the injury cases is not permissible. Even in the above decision, the injured was an earning member.
An amount of Rs.6,20,762/- is claimed 15) towards medical expenses. There is no evidence adduced contra to the evidence of Pws.1 to 5. It appears that the final bill issued by Sri Sai Bhavani
Super Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad for one day shows that an amount of Rs.96,954/- was payable by PW1 for medical treatment etc. The calculation memo as to particulars of medical bills filed by the petitioner shows that PW1 claimed the amount mentioned in the final bill (Sl.No.14) besides Rs.30,514/-, separately, covered by receipts with serial numbers 1 to 13 of Ex.A26. It appears that the above amount of Rs.30,514/- is also covered by the final bill as Rs.20,554 towards pharmacy, Rs.6900/- towards blood charges and
Rs.4400/- towards investigations. So, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs.30,500/- is to be deducted from out of the above total amount claimed by PW1 towards medical expenses. PW1 was in the above hospital for only one day as an inpatient. The final bill issued by Sri Sai Bhavani Super Speciality Hospital shows that the total amount to be paid by the petitioner 17 is shown as Rs.96,954/-, but, the detailed bill settlement enclosed to it shows that the amount actually claimed by the hospital was only Rs.65,100/-, only three payment receipts including the advance of
Rs.23,000/- paid in two instalments are produced and they show that the amount spent on behalf of PW1 at
Sai Bhavani Super Speciality Hospital is only
Rs.60,100/-. But, in the calculation memo filed by the petitioner, it is shown by PW1 that he spent nearly
Rs.1,27,000/- at Sai Bhavani Super Speciality Hospital.
Hence, an amount of Rs.67,000/- is to be deducted from out of the above amount of Rs.6,20,762/-. Therefore, I award a sum of Rs.60,100/- towards medical expenditure incurred by PW1 at Sai Bhavani Super
Speciality Hospital as against the claim of the petitioner of Rs.1,27,000/- and odd. The final bill issued by the
Apollo Hospital shows that the petitioner spent
Rs.3,36,542-87 ps. PW1 also produced medical bills for the treatment taken at Apollo Hospital. Physiotherapy charges are Rs.72,000/- for one year. Considering the above, I award a sum of Rs.5,54,000/- (Rupees five lakh and fifty four thousand) towards medical expenses.
Rs.1,00,000/- is claimed towards loss of studies. There is no oral or documentary evidence regarding the above loss. According to the petitioner, he was 18 studying III year B.Tech., Engineering Course and his age was above 27 years at that time. There is no evidence on record as to the loss of studies. Hence, I am unable to award any amount under the above head.
Rs.10,215/- is claimed towards transport charges.
Considering the place of residence of the petitioner and the place of treatment at two different hospitals, I award a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) towards transport charges. Rs.10,000/- is claimed towards attendant charges. It appears that the petitioner was hospitalized from 18.5.2007 to 11.7.2007, 12.8.2007 to 14.8.2007 and from 13.9.2007 to 15.9.2007 i.e., for about 58 days. Considering the above period of hospitalization, I award a sum of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) as claimed by the petitioner towards attendant charges. Rs.14,000/- is claimed towards special diet and extra nourishment.
Considering the period of hospitalization and the nature of injuries, I award a sum of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees eleven thousand) towards special diet and extra nourishment.
Rs.75,000/- is claimed as compensation for pain and suffering. Considering the nature and number of injuries and the period of hospitalization, I award a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand) as claimed by him. Rs.16,70,000/- is claimed as 19 compensation for loss of earning power, loss of disfiguration and permanent disability. The petitioner was a non-earning member. He produced X class certificate and it shows that the petitioner passed X class in 1995 and the petitioner secured 425 marks out of 600 including 64 marks in Hindi. The date of birth of the injured is 10.7.1979. He also produced
Bonafide/conduct certificate from the Principal of
Muffakham Jah College of Engineering and Technology,
Hyderabad to the effect that the petitioner was a bonafide student of B.E. In the above college during the academic year 2007-2008. He did not produce his marks list obtained by him in the I and II years B.E. to say that he is a meritorious student. He also produced a certificate obtained from Acharya Nagarjuna University to the effect that he passed Decree of Bachelor of
Computer Applications during the year 2004. He also produced documents like Hall ticket of S.I. Of Police and
P.E.T., Hall ticket of Deputy Jailors, Hall ticket of
A.P.P.S.C. Group-I preliminary, Hall ticket of Staff
Selection Commission and Hall ticket of Civil Service
Examination to be held on 20.5.2007. He also produced a copy of hall ticket issued by U.P.S.C. for appearing to the preliminary examination to be held on 14.5.2006. He also obtained a copy of hall ticket for 20 writing the combined Graduate Level (main) examination to be held on 4.8.2007 onwards. He also produced copy of certificate of qualified PET performance during 2006. However, he was a non- earning member and he was only a student of BCA and was trying for jobs. There is no medical evidence that
PW1 lost his earning power. He had injuries to his right leg only. On that basis, we can't say that he lost his earning power. Hence, I am unable to award any amount towards loss of earning power. Even if his income is fixed at Rs.15,000/- per annum as a non- earning member, the amount that can be awarded to
PW1 under the above head will be Rs.1,08,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 18 x 40%). Considering the nature of injuries and the material available on record, I award a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh) towards permanent disability and disfiguration etc. Considering the evidence of PW3, I award a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand) towards future medical expenses. Thus, in total, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,20,000/- (Rupees ten lakh and twenty thousand only) from the respondents 1 and 2, jointly and severally u/s 166 of the M.V.Act. This issue is thus answered.
21
ISSUE No.3:
16) IN THE RESULT, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed partly with proportionate costs and an Award is passed in favour of the petitioner against the respondent No.1 and 2 for a sum of Rs.10,20,000/- (Rupees ten lakh and twenty thousand) payable with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization whichever is earlier. The respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the Award amount within one month from today. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- immediately along with accrued interest and costs thereon and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of three years. The rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed without costs. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only).
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 11th day of May, 2012.
Chairman, V Addl. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL,
N e l l o r e.
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined
For Petitioner:
PW1:Syed Hidayathullah. PW2:Dr. C.Pavan Kumar. PW3:Dr. Jayaramachander Pingle. PW4:Dr. K.Narendra Nath. PW5:Dr. Y.Balaram.
For Respondents
NONE.
22
Documents Marked
For Petitioner:
Ex.A1 :Attested Xerox copy of F.I.R. Ex.A2 :Attested Xerox copy of Wound Certificate. Ex.A3 :Attested xerox copy of charge sheet. Ex.A4 :Attested xerox copy of Bonafide/conduct certificate. Ex.A5 :Attested xerox copy of SSC Certificate. Ex.A6 :Attested xerox copy of Bachelor of Computer Applications. Ex.A7 :Copy of letter addressed to the Director of Medical Education, A.P., Hyderabad. Ex.A8 :Letter addressed by the Superintendent of Police, Nellore. Ex.A9 :Attested xerox copy of Hall ticket of S.I. Of Police and P.E.T. Ex.A10:Attested xerox copy of Hall ticket of Deputy Jailors. Ex.A11:Attested xerox copy of Hall ticket of APPSC Group-I Preliminary Examinations, dt.10.10.05 Ex.A12:Attested xerox copy of Hall ticket issued by Staff Selection Commission. Ex.A13:Attested xerox copy of Hall ticket issued by Staff Selection Commission. Ex.A14:Attested xerox copy of Civil Service Examination hall ticket. Ex.A15:Attested xerox copy of Civil Service Examination hall ticket dt.20.5.2007. Ex.A16:Discharge summary dt.19.5.2007. Ex.17 :Discharge summary issued by Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad dt.12.8.07. Ex.18 :Discharge summary issued by Apollo hospital, Hyderabad, dt.15.9.07. Ex.A19:Bunch of photos along with negatives. Ex.A20:Emergency admission certificate. Ex.A21:Essentiality Certificate dt.18.5.2007. Ex.A22:Essentiality Certificate. Ex.A23:Emergency Admission Certificate. Ex.A24:Emergency Admission Certificate. Ex.A25:Disability certificate. Ex.A26:Bunch of medical bills. Ex.A27:Bunch of X-ray films. Ex.A28:Certificate issued by Dr. Y.Balaram, B.P.I. Ex.A29:Certificate issued by Dr. Jairam Chand.
For Respondents:
Ex.B1:Copy of Insurance policy.
V A.M.A.C.T.
23 11.5.2012: (O)
Orders pronounced. (Vide separate order).
24
IN THE RESULT, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed partly with proportionate costs and an Award is passed in favour of the petitioner against the respondent No.1 and 2 for a sum of Rs.10,20,000/- (Rupees ten lakh and twenty thousand) payable with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization whichever is earlier. The respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the Award amount within one month from today. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw asumofRs.1,20,000/- immediately along with accrued interest and costs thereon and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of three years. The rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed without costs. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only).
V AMACT