MVOP 300 of PDJ1 2013
BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON, MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL –CUM- PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
KURNOOL
PRESENT: Smt. G.Anupama Chakravarthy, Chairperson, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool -cum- Principal District Judge, Kurnool
Thursday, the 30th day of August 2018
MVOP No.300 of 2013
P.Khaja Hussain … Petitioner -Versus- 1.Y.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Kurnool, Rep., by its Branch Manager … Respondents
This petition coming on 06-07-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Jaya Raju, Advocate for the petitioner,
Sri Y.Sreenivasulu, Smt.U.V.Lakshmi, Advocates for the first respondent, Sri.Palle Niranjan Kumar, Advocate for the second respondent; having heard on both sides; upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-
O R D E R
Claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- in total, the petitioner in the capacity of the injured, has come up with this petition against the respondents 1 and 2, invoking Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, as narrated in the petition and amended petition, are that on 25-03-2013 at about 1-00 P.M near
Penchikalapadu High School on Kurnool-Guntur Road, the first
MVOP 300 of PDJ2 2013 respondent drove the auto bearing No.AP21-X-8161 in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed without taking precautions and dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner who was coming in the opposite direction, as a result the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner was immediately shifted to Gowri Gopal Hospital, Kurnool in 108-Ambulance and was admitted as an in-patient. The petitioner sustained multiple fractures to his right leg and right foot and injuries all over the body. The petitioner was later shifted to Yasoda Hospital,
Hyderabad for better treatment and was treated as inpatient for one week and underwent operation and was discharged with further advice to come for bone grafting and for regular reviews. The petitioner was confined to bed and he was under constant medical care and attention. The petitioner spent Rs.3,00,000/- for his treatment at Kurnool and Hyderabad and he requires
Rs.2,00,000/- for further operations and bone grafting. The petitioner was admitted twice in Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad after filing of the claim petition and underwent operations and spent
Rs.3,00,000/- for bone grafting, travel expenses and attendant charges and he is still under constant treatment and medical advice and could not regain his normal health inspite of prolonged treatment.
It is contended by the petitioner that he is an agriculturist and he was hale and healthy, aged about 55 years at the time of accident and was getting an annual income of Rs.3,00,000/- by
MVOP 300 of PDJ3 2013 personally cultivating and supervising the agricultural work in his lands and by doing seeds business. Due to the accident injuries, the petitioner suffered permanent disability and unable to sit and squat or walk properly and not able to attend his personal daily needs. The petitioner suffered loss of present and future earnings and he may be confined to bed for more than one year and put to suffer for the rest of his life with the permanent disability. The first respondent, being the owner-cum-driver of the auto bearing registration No.AP21-X-8161 and the second respondent, being its insurer, are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner to the extent claimed.
3.Notice served upon the respondents 1 and 2.
4.The first respondent filed counter admitting that he is the owner and driver of the auto bearing No.AP21-X-8161 involved in the accident and submitted that the accident took place due to the own negligence of the petitioner who came in opposite direction on his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner in wrong direction and hit the auto of the first respondent, but the petitioner managed the police and got registered the case against him. The first respondent further submitted that the petitioner sustained only simple injuries and the medical bills and other documents are created for getting more compensation. The claim made by the petitioner is excessive. The first respondent further submitted that his vehicle is insured with the second respondent and the second
MVOP 300 of PDJ4 2013 respondent is liable to pay the compensation if any. There is no violation on the part of the first respondent with regard to the terms and conditions of the policy. As there is no fault or negligence on the part of the first respondent, he prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
5.The second respondent, who came on record, filed counter and additional counter, denying all the material averments in the petition with regard to the date, place, time and the manner in which the accident occurred, the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, his hospitalization, his age, occupation and income as on the date of the accident, the aspect of disability and contended that it is for the petitioner to prove all those facts by documentary evidence.
The second respondent contended that the accident took place due to the sole negligence on the part of the petitioner who rode the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and completely towards wrong side and his negligence may be considered to a greater extent. If the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, it is also payable by the owner and insurer of the motor cycle who are also necessary parties to the proceedings, but the petitioner failed to make them as parties, which is bad in law.
It is further contended that the first respondent/driver of the auto was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and he was not qualified for holding or obtaining such licence, thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy and
MVOP 300 of PDJ5 2013 hence, in view of the breach of contract, the first respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. The petitioner is put to strict proof that there was no breach of permit and the offending auto had valid fitness and permit. The petitioner is also put to strict proof of the injuries sustained in the accident and various claims made by him in the petition with documentary proof. The amount of compensation and interest claimed is excessive and exorbitant. By stating so, the second respondent prayed this Court to dismiss the petition with costs.
6.On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled for trial:
1. Whether the accident that occurred on 25-03-2013 at about 1-00 P.M near High School, Penchikalapadu village on Guduru-Kurnool road, was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing registration No.AP21-X-8161, which resulted in injuries to the petitioner, P.Khaja Hussain?
2. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary and proper parties?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
4. To what relief?
7.The petitioner, to prove his claim, examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A19.
MVOP 300 of PDJ6 2013
On behalf of the second respondent, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and X1 to X5 were marked. Reported no evidence on behalf of first respondent.
8.Heard on both sides. Perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the second respondent.
9.ISSUE Nos.1 and 2:
1. Whether the accident that occurred on 25-03-2013 at about 1-00 P.M near High School, Penchikalapadu village on Guduru-Kurnool road, was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing registration No.AP21-X-8161, which resulted in injuries to the petitioner, P.Khaja Hussain?
2. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary and proper parties?
These two Issues are inter-linked with each other, hence they are decided together in this order.
The version of the petitioner is that the accident solely occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent who is the driver of auto bearing registration No.AP21-X-8161.
The contention of the second respondent is that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner who was riding the motor cycle on the wrong side. The petitioner, to establish his version, besides examining himself as
PW1, also produced Exs.A1 and A4, which are the certified copies of F.I.R. and charge-sheet, respectively.
MVOP 300 of PDJ7 2013
PW1 filed his chief examination affidavit reiterating the contents of the petition and Exs.A1 to A18 were marked. In the cross-examination PW1 stated that the first respondent is the owner –cum- driver. He denied the suggestion that due to his own negligence, the accident occurred. He also stated that he does not know the result of the criminal case filed against the first respondent in respect of the accident.
10.Ex.A1, which is the certified copy of First Information Report in Crime No.15 of 2013 of K.Nagalapuram Police Station, disclose that basing on the statement given by Razak, a case was registered against the driver of the auto bearing registration No.AP21-X-8161 for the offence punishable under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code.
Ex.A4, which is the certified copy of charge sheet in Crime No.15 of 2013 of K.Nagalapuram Police Station, disclose that after due investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, K.Nagalapuram police station laid charge sheet against the first respondent, who was the driver of auto bearing registration No.AP21-X-8161 at the relevant time of the accident, for the offence punishable under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code.
11.On the other hand, the second respondent did not choose to adduce any oral evidence in order to establish its contentions that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the petitioner who was riding a motor cycle at the relevant time.
MVOP 300 of PDJ8 2013
12.It is clear from the documentary evidence of Exs.A1 and A4, coupled with the oral evidence of PW1 that a case was registered against the first respondent who was driver of the auto, and the police have laid a charge sheet against him. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has successfully established that only due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent who was driving the auto, the accident occurred and that the owner and the insurer of the motor cycle on which the petitioner was riding which is also involved in the accident, are not necessary parties to this petition.
Therefore, these two Issues are settled in favour of the petitioner.
13.ISSUE No.3:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
It is the contention of the petitioner that the first respondent being the owner and the second respondent being the insurer of the auto bearing registration No.AP21-X-8161, are liable to pay compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. On the other hand, it is the contention of the second respondent that the first respondent violated the terms and conditions of policy as he was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle as on the date of accident.
MVOP 300 of PDJ9 2013
14.Thought it is contended by the second respondent that the first respondent violated the conditions of policy and hence the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, the said contention cannot be considered as admittedly the policy is in force as on the date of accident and the petitioner is a third party to the offending vehicle. If at all there are any violations, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner/injured at the first instance and it is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, if necessary. In the light of the evidence available on record, it is now to be seen whether there are any violations of the terms and conditions of insurance policy.
15.In order to establish its contention, the second respondent examined RW2 and got marked Exs.X4 and X5 which are the authorization of RW2 and true copy of the driving licence extract of the first respondent issued by the Regional Transport Officer,
Kurnool. The evidence of RW2 shows that as on the date of accident, the driver Y.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy was holding non- transport licence and he was issued the transport driving licence on 27-7-2015 as per Ex.X5. RW2 further deposed that initially any driver will be issued with non-transport driving licence to drive an auto and after one year, the driver is entitled for the transport licence. It is elicited in the cross-examination of RW2 by the learned counsel for petitioner that there is no different mechanism for driving auto under transport and non-transport.
MVOP 300 of PDJ10 2013
16.Ex.X5 shows that the driver/first respondent was issued with a non-transport driving licence for Auto Rickshaw Non Transport on 30-11-2007 and the renewal of said licence was done on 13-5-2013 under the same category of Auto Rickshaw Non-
Transport. The driver/first respondent was issued with the driving licence for Auto Rickshaw Transport on 27-7-2015. It means, from 30-11-2007 to 26-7-2015 the driver of the offending vehicle was holding licence for Auto Rickshaw Non-Transport. RW2 deposed that after one year of issuing the non-transport driving licence, the driver will be entitled for transport licence. But in the present case, though the driver was initially issued with driving licence for Non-
Transport Auto, it appears that he was not issued with licence for
Transport Auto even after 8 years i.e, by 26-7-2015. On the other hand, the licence for Non-Transport auto was renewed on 13-5-2013. It is not elicited from the evidence of RW2 as to why the driver was not issued licence for Transport Auto after one year i.e., in the year 2008, instead it was renewed in the year 2013 under the same Non-Transport category. Whether the driver did not apply for a licence to drive Transport Auto, is not known.
Similarly, the reason why the licence for Non-Transport auto was renewed in the year 2013 instead of issuing Transport licence, is not known. When as per the evidence of RW1, a driver will be eligible for issue of licence to drive Transport Auto after one year of the issue of Non-Transport licence, why the driver/first respondent in the present case was not issued with a Transport Driving licence even after 8 years of the issue of Non-Transport driving licence, and
MVOP 300 of PDJ11 2013 instead of it, why the Non-Transport licence was renewed in the year 2013, is not clarified by RW2. It is not elicited from RW2 whether the driver/first respondent did not apply for issue of the licence to drive Auto Rickshaw Transport. Without any clarification on the said aspect, it cannot be said that the driver/first respondent was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident.
17.RW1 stated in his cross-examination that there is no different mechanism for driving auto under transport or non-transport. It is pertinent to note that an auto rickshaw is a Transport vehicle when it is used to transport goods or passengers, and it is a Non-
Transport vehicle as long as it is not carrying any goods or passengers. No evidence is available on record to show whether the offending auto was being used for transport/commercial purpose or whether it was carrying any goods or passengers as on the date of accident. Without any evidence on this aspect, it cannot be said that the auto was a Transport Auto or it was used for the transport/commercial purpose. As such, it can be inferred that the auto was non-transport auto and as the driver was admittedly holding licence to drive Auto Rickshaw Non-Transport as on the date of accident, it cannot be said that he was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle.
Moreover, there is no separate mechanism to drive a transport auto, different from the mechanism to drive a non-transport auto.
The second respondent did not make any effort to produce the
MVOP 300 of PDJ12 2013
Registration Certificate and Permit of the auto to show that the auto in the present case, was a transport vehicle and the driver was required to hold a Transport licence to drive the same. In the absence of any such evidence, the contention of the second respondent that the driver of the offending auto was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident, cannot be accepted. As the second respondent/insurance company failed to prove any violations on the part of the first respondent, it cannot be exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Ex.B1-insurance policy is valid from 28-5-2012 to 27-5-2013 and the accident occurred on 25-3-2013 and as such, the policy issued by the second respondent, is in force as on the date of accident. Hence, the Respondents 1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the offending auto, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
18.The claim of the petitioner is for Rs.12,00,000/- in total. The second respondent contended that the said claim is excessive and exorbitant. The contention of the petitioner is that he sustained multiple fractures to his right leg and right foot and injuries all over the body and took treatment in Gowri Gopal Hospital, Kurnool, and later shifted to Yasoda Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment and underwent operation and spent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses. He was admitted twice in Yashoda
Hospital, Hyderabad after filing of this petition and underwent
MVOP 300 of PDJ13 2013 surgeries and spent Rs.3,00,000/- for his further treatment of bone grafting and towards travel expenses.
In order to establish the injuries sustained by him in the accident, the petitioner filed Ex.A2-wound certificate which shows that he sustained fracture of Femur and Tibia and Injury to Skull with bleeding and both injuries are grievous in nature. The petitioner also filed Exs.A3, A5, A7 and A9-Discharge Cards and
Exs.A6, A8, A10, A12 which are the Final Bills issued by the respective hospitals and also filed Ex.A11-Bunch of medical bills and Ex.A13-Medical Certificate. Apart from the documentary evidence, the petitioner also examined the doctors who treated him in the hospitals at Kurnool and Hyderabad, as PWs.2 and 3.
19.PW3 is the Orthopaedic Surgeon at Yashoda Hospital,
Hyderabad, who treated the petitioner. It is the evidence of PW3 that PW1 was admitted in their hospital on 26-03-2013 with injury right knee open leg wound sutured outside and open wound over right foot following road traffic accident on 25-3-2013 and he was diagnosed with Impending comptment in syndrome right leg with vascular compromise with Grade IV communited fracture distal femur right + fracture proximal tibia right with laceration around first and second toe right foot. The patient was evaluated and taken of surgery on 27-3-2013 by means of debridement + ORIF distal femur with cancellous screw, CRIF Tibia Fracture, Illzarov External
Fixation and was discharged on 30-3-2013 with advice of review after seven weeks and plan for bone grafting after six weeks. Ex.A5
MVOP 300 of PDJ14 2013 is the discharge summary and Ex.X1 is the case sheet, Ex.A6 is the bills issued by Yashoda Hospital. PW3 further deposed that the patient was again admitted on 15-5-2013 and bone grafting was done on 16-5-2013 and discharged on 18-5-2013 and Ex.A8 is the bill issued by Yashoda Hospital, Ex.X2 is the case sheet relating the said treatment. PW3 further deposed that the patient was again admitted on 29-11-2013 and was operated by means of bone grafting on 30-11-2013 and discharged on 1-12-2013 and Ex.A9 is the discharge summary,Ex.A10 is the bills and Ex.X3 is the case sheet.
In the cross-examination PW3 stated that the patient was admitted for second and third operations for follow up bone grafting treatment on his advice.
20.PW2 is the Orthopedic Surgeon at Apple Orthopedic Hospital,
Kurnool and he deposed that PW1 was admitted with complaint of pain in right thigh and leg suffering since 2013 and after physically going through the history of medical records issued by Yashoda
Hospital, Hyderabad Gowri Gopal Hospital, Kurnool, and after thorough examination and investigation, he opined that this is a case of infected non-union of right femur with Osteomeilites of right femur, stiff knee and tibia Osteomeilities. PW2 further deposed that PW1 was operated on 16-4-2015 and amputation was done to the right lower limb above the knee and he was discharged on 22-4-2015 with advise for regular check up and transition for above
MVOP 300 of PDJ15 2013 knee artificial prosthesis. PW2 deposed that PW1 needs crutchers or artificial leg to walk and the original case sheet is marked as
Ex.A19. PW2 deposed that Exs.A11 to A13 were issued by their hospital and that PW1 sustained 85% permanent disability due to which the earnings of PW1 would be effected and that PW1 cannot move with assistance.
In the cross-examination, PW2 stated that PW1 can do his works in sitting position and denied the suggestion that PW1 did not sustain any disability and can do his works.
21.The evidence of PW3 coupled with Exs.A5 and X1 show that
PW1 underwent surgery and took treatment at Yashoda Hospital from 26-3-2013 to 30-3-2013. Exs.A18 and X2 show the treatment of bone grafting from 15-5-2013 to 18-5-2013 while Exs.A9 and X3 shows the treatment undergone from 29-11-2013 to 30-11-2013 at
Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. They also show that PW1 was diagnosed with Impending compartment in syndrome right leg with vascular compromise with Grade IV comminuted fracture distal femur right + fracture proximal tibia right with laceration around first and second toe right foot and underwent the above treatment.
Ex.A2 is the wound certificate issued by Gowri Gopal Hospital, which also shows the fractures of Femur and Tibia and Injury to
Skull with bleeding and both injuries are grievous in nature. It is clear from the evidence of PW2 that PW1 underwent surgery and his right lower limb was amputated above the knee.
MVOP 300 of PDJ16 2013
22.PW4 is the member of Medical Board, Kurnool who deposed that on 30-09-2015 PW1 attended before the Medical Board at
Kurnool and he along with Dr.Y.Srinivasulu and Dr.J.Veeraswamy,
Superintendent of Government General Hospital, Kurnool examined
PW1 and issued Ex.A15-disability certificate stating the disability
as 80% as his lower limb was amputated.
PW4 stated in his cross-examination that PW1 can sit and supervise agricultural works or can conduct business. PW4 denied the suggestion that they gave excess disability at the instance of the petitioner.
Ex.A15 is the disability certificate issued by a Board of three competent doctors after thorough examination of PW1, stating that the percentage of disability is 80%. It is clearly mentioned that the disability is relating to the post traumatic amputation of right lower limb. PW2 also deposed that the right lower limb of PW1 was amputated above the knee. Hence, there is no hesitation to say that PW1 sustained a disability of 80% which is permanent in nature. The note at the bottom of the certificate that it is not valid for Medico-Legal cases, is of no consequence, because Ex.A15 is issued by a Board of three competent doctors and the said note cannot in any way disprove the disability sustained by PW1. As such, the contention of the second respondent that Ex.A15 is not valid, cannot be accepted. In view of the above oral and
MVOP 300 of PDJ17 2013 documentary evidence, the petitioner is able to establish that he has sustained 80% permanent disability.
23.The evidence of PW1 goes to show that he was aged 55 years by the date of the accident. As per Ex.A4-charge-sheet, the age of the petitioner is stated as 55 years as on the date of accident. The entire medical record discloses the age of the petitioner as 55 years.
Hence, the age of the petitioner is taken as 55 years as on the date of accident. For the age group of 51-55 years, the appropriate multiplier that can be taken as per the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in “Sarla Verma and others, Appellants -Vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and another, respondents”1, is “11”.
24.The petitioner contended that he was an agriculturist and personally doing seed business and used to get an income of
Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. In support of his case, PW1 filed
Exs.A16 to A18, pattadar pass books. Ex.A16 shows that PW1 owns Ac.6-88 cents of land in Survey No.565 of Remata village.
Ex.A17 shows that he owns Ac.3-14 cents of land in Survey Nos.1 and 45 of Kothakota village. Ex.A18 shows that PW1 owns Ac.2-20 cents of land in Survey Nos.105, 106 and 107 of Sunkesula village.
Altogether the petitioner owns an extent of Ac.12-22 cents.
However, the petitioner did not file any proof to show that he was doing seeds business. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner owned 12009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
MVOP 300 of PDJ18 2013 agricultural land and was getting income from agriculture. PW1 did file any document to show how much income he used to get from the above said lands. In the absence of convincing material, it cannot be believed that the petitioner was getting an income of
Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. The land, being an asset, is intact even though the petitioner is personally unable to cultivate it. In the cross-examination, PW1 stated that the lands under Exs.A16 to
A18 cannot be cultivated through supervision alone. He denied the suggestion that he is cultivating the lands personally even at present. In view of the above circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the income of the petitioner can be considered as Rs.5,000/- per month considering the extent of Ac.12-22 cents of land owned by him and the accident being occurred in the year 2013. The annual income, thus comes to Rs.60,000/-.
25.As already stated supra, the petitioner sustained 80% permanent disability and the relevant multiplier is “11”. Hence, the total earning power of the petitioner comes to Rs.6,60,000/-, i.e., Rs.60,000/- x 11. Since the disability is 80%, so the loss of earning power of the petitioner comes to Rs.5,28,000/-, i.e.,
Rs.6,60,000/- x 80%.
26.The petitioner has pleaded that he incurred an amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- towards treatment and medicines taken in Yashoda
Hospital, Hyderabad and again he incurred an expenditure of
Rs.3,00,000/- for the treatment taken after filing the claim petition
MVOP 300 of PDJ19 2013 and also incurred expenditure towards travel expenses. In his evidence, PW1 stated that he incurred nearly Rs.7,50,000/- towards treatment, transport and attendant charges. In support of his claim, the petitioner filed Exs.A6, A8, A10, A12 which are the
Final Bills and Ex.A11-Bunch of medical bills. Ex.A6 is the Final bill for Rs.2,55,284/- relating to the treatment from 26-3-2013 to 30-3-2013 at Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad. ExA6 is supported by Ex.A5-Discharge summary. Ex.A8 is the Final Bill for Rs.1,20,104/- issued by Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad relating to the treatment from 15-5-2013 to 18-5-2013. Ex.A8 is supported by Ex.A7-Discharge summary. Ex.A10 is the Final Bill for
Rs.65,307/- issued by the same hospital, relating to the treatment from 29-11-2013 to 1-12-2013. Ex.A10 is supported by Ex.A9-
Discharge summary. The evidence of PW3 is also supporting the bills under Exs.A6, A8 and A10 that the said bills are issued by their hospital. Ex.A12 is the bill issued by Apple Orthopedic
Hospital, Kurnool, for Rs.27,450/- and it is supported by Ex.13-
Medical Certificate issued by the said hospital. Ex.A11 is the bunch of medical bills relating to Apple Orthopeadic Hospital,
Kurnool, totaling Rs.42,915/-. PW3 deposed that Exs.A11 to A13 were issued by their hospital. The total of Exs.A6, A8, A10 to A12, comes to Rs.5,11,060/-. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,11,060/- under the head of medical expenses.
MVOP 300 of PDJ20 2013
27.It is an admitted fact that the accident occurred within the limits of K.Nagalapuram police station of Kurnool District and from there, the petitioner was shifted to Gowri Gopal Hospital, Kurnool and from there to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. In order to prove the transport charges incurred by him, the petitioner filed Ex.A14-
Transport bills totaling a sum of Rs.88,761/-. In view of the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner would have certainly required to engage the private vehicle for his conveyance from Kurnool to Hyderabad as he took treatment as inpatient and outpatient in the Yashoda Hospital at Hyderabad.
Considering the bills under Ex.A14, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner can be granted an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards transportation charges. Apart from that, the petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, which he might have suffered during the course of treatment. The petitioner might have spent some amount for having extra nourishment during the period of his treatment for having a speedy recovery. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards attendant charges as he underwent surgery for four times and was required to take the assistance of someone or the other.
As per Ex.A2-wound certificate, the petitioner sustained two fractures which are grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards thetwogrievous injuries.
MVOP 300 of PDJ21 2013
Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court considers desirable to award compensation to the petitioner under the following heads.
Loss of earning power :Rs. 5,28,000-00
Medical expenses:Rs. 5,11,060-00
Transport charges:Rs. 75,000-00
Pain and suffering during :Rs. 25,000-00 treatment
Extra nourishment:Rs. 10,000-00
Attendant charges:Rs. 20,000-00
Pain and suffering for two :Rs. 30,000-00 grievous injuries
TOTAL Rs.11,99,060-00 :
28.As already stated supra, the contents of Ex.B1 Insurance
Policy go to show that the offending vehicle was insured with the second respondent and that the policy stood subsisting when the accident occurred. The second respondent is unable to show that there is violation of the terms and conditions of Ex.B1 policy.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to answer the claim of the petitioner, as the policy covers the risk of the petitioner who is a third party to the offending vehicle.
Thus, this Issue is answered partly in favour of the petitioner.
MVOP 300 of PDJ22 2013
29.ISSUE No.4:
To what relief?
In the result, the petition is allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.11,99,060/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety Nine
Thousand and Sixty only) to the petitioner together with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.
The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and they are directed to deposit the entire amount within one month from the date of this order.
On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.4,99,060/- immediately after deposit and the remaining amount of Rs.7,00,000/- along with interest shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years and he is permitted to withdraw the said amount with accrued interest after expiry of the said period.
Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30th day of August
2018.
Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- Principal
District Judge, Kurnool
MVOP 300 of PDJ23 2013
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PETITIONER:
P.W.1 P.Khaja Hussain, Son of P.Giddaiah, Resident of Sunkesula Village, Kurnool Mandal and District.
P.W.2Dr.S.Achyutha Rao, Son of S.Srirangam, Chief Orthopedic Surgeon, Apple Orthopedic Hospitial, Kurnool.
P.W.3Dr.Dasaratha Rami Reddy, Son of Late Narasimha Reddy, Orthopedic Surgeon, Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad.
P.W.4Dr.D.Rajaiah, Son of D.Chinna Rajaiah, Assistant Professor of Orthopedic, Government General Hospital, Kurnool.
FOR FIRST RESPONDENT:
None
FOR SECOND RESPONDENT:
R.W.1Jamadagni Desai, Son of D.Krishna Murthy, Executive Legal, M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad.
R.W.2S.Malik Basha, Son of S.Shali Miah, Senior Assistant in Regional Transport Office, Kurnool.
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PETITIONER:
Ex.A1Certified copy of First Information Report in Crime No.15/2013 of Nagalapuram Police Station.
Ex.A2Certified copy of wound certificate.
Ex.A3Discharge card.
Ex.A4Certified copy of charge sheet.
Ex.A5Discharge summary.
MVOP 300 of PDJ24 2013
Ex.A6Final medical bill statement dated 30.3.2013.
Ex.A7Discharge summary.
Ex.A8Final medical bill statement dated 18.5.2013.
Ex.A9Discharge summary.
Ex.A10Final medical bill statement dated 1.12.2013.
Ex.A11Bunch of medical bills, 16 in number.
Ex.A12Final bill dated 22.4.2015.
Ex.A13Medical certificate.
Ex.A14Transport bills.
Ex.A15Disability certificate.
Ex.A16Pattadar passbook with regard to the lands situated in Remata Village.
Ex.A17Pattadar passbook with regard to the lands situated in Kothakota Village.
Ex.A18Pattadar passbook with regard to the lands situated in Sunkesula Village.
Ex.A19Original case sheet of P.W.1 relating to Apple Hospital.
FOR FIRST RESPONDENT:
Nil
FOR SECOND RESPONDENT:
Ex.B1Attested copy of policy bearing No.OG-13-1806-1803- 00000251 for the period 28th May, 2012 to 27th May, 2013 for the Piaggio Auto vehicle bearing No.AP 21 X 8161 dated 19.5.2012.
Ex.X1Case sheet.
Ex.X2Case sheet relating to the period 15.5.2013 to 18.5.2013.
Ex.X3Case sheet.
MVOP 300 of PDJ25 2013
Ex.X4Authorization letter dated 3.4.2018 issued by RTO, Kurnool.
Ex.X5True copy of driving licence extract of first respondent issued by RTO, Kurnool.
Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- Principal
District Judge, Kurnool.