:: IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT
CUM SPL. COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN CUM VIII ADDL.
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: EAST GODAVARI AT
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM::
Present : Sri T. Venkata Subba Rao,
VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Spl. Judge for trial of offences against women cum VIII Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal: Rajamahendravaram.
Monday, the 3rd day of May, 2021
M.V.O.P. No.406 of 2018
Between:- Vegi Lakshmi Satya Priya, W/o Lakshmana Rao, Hindu, aged 38 years, r/o Andhra Sugar Quarters, No.1/34, 10th ward, Kovvur, West Godavari District, RJY DMC,
Cell No.8919935632. …..Petitioner
and
1.Kakarla Hanumantha Rao, S/o Venkayya, Hindu, aged 50 years, Driver of Oil Tanker lorry bearing No.AP 31 TH 5555, r/o D.No.44-38-23/20, Srinivas Nagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam D.M.C.
2.Munama Padmavathi, W/o Munama Pandu Ranga Rao, Hindu, aged 40 years, Owner of Oil Tanker Lorry bearing No.AP 31 TH 5555, r/o D.No.44-34-33, Flat No.4, Sai Teja residency, Nandagiri Nagar, Visakhapatnam Urban-530 016, Visakhapatnam D.M.C.
3.Th New India Assurance Co. Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, D.No.47-10-12, Pavan Paradise, 4th floor, 2nd lane,
Dwaraka nagar, Visakhapatnam-530 016, Visakhapatnam D.M.C.…...Respondents
This petition is coming on 27-04-2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.D.P. Ramalingeswara Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri D.V.V. Trinadh, Advocate respondents Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Ch.V. Prasad, Advocate for respondent No.3 and upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner and against the respondents under Sec.166 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rule 455 of the
A.P. Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 seeking compensation to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by her in the accident occurred on 08-03-2018 at Durgamma temple,
Rajanagaram.
2
2.The factual matrix of the case in brief is as follows:-
The petition is filed by the petitioner against the respondents 1 to 3 seeking compensation of an amount of RS.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident in a rash and negligent manner, oil tanker lorry bearing No.AP 31 TH 5555 driven by the 1st respondent. That the petitioner is a resident of Kovvuru village and
Mandal, West Godavari district, aged about 38 years, housewife, and hale and healthy at the time of accident. That the 1st respondent driver of oil tanker lorry bearing No.AP 31 TH 5555, the 2nd respondent is the owner of the oil tanker bearing No.AP 31 TH 5555 which is involved in the accident, 3rd respondent is the insurer of the said Oil tanker lorry . The policy was validate by the date of accident.
On 08-03-2018 the injured petitioner Vegi Lakshmi Satya Priya at 04-30 p.m., on NH 16 road while she was travelling with her husband on their Bajaj Chetak scooter bearing No.AP 37 J 6252 as pillion rider, proceeding from Murari to Rajamahendravaram in the meantime, at 04-30 P.M., when they reached Durgamma temple, at Rajanagaram one oil tanker lorry bearing No.AP 31 TH 5555 proceeding in the same direction drove his tanker in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and dashed the petitioner’s
Bajaj Chetak scooter on its rear side, as a result, the petitioner and her husband both fell down on the road and the lorry dragged them for some distance. Due to which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries on her and very grievous injuries were caused to the petitioner vergina and anul outlet bone was crushed severely and also hip bones were broken. Immediately she was shifted to GSL Hospital, Rajanagaram where she was given 1st aid and form there she was shifted to Apex Hospital, Rajamahendrvaram, immediately on 08-03-2018 polostimy surgery was conducted and the anus tube, since was damaged to discharge motion outlet was fixed openly. But in spite of it, it was infected and the petitioner was discharged on 20-03-2018 with an advice to go for expert treatment at a medical cosmopolitan city like Hyderabad and hence she was immediately taken to
Hyderaband and joined her in KIMS hospital, Hyderabad where pelvic operation was done and also 4 times plastic surgeries were done near anus. The petitioner submits that altogether she was hospitalized in Apex Hospital for about 13 days and at KIMS hospital,
Hyderabad about 42 days in 2 sessions, not only that she suffered heavy physical and functional pain and also spent about 5 lakhs for the surgeries apart from that she had 3 incurred till date an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- approximately towards medicines etc., and finally submits that even after, the entire treatment stated above she has to undergo another surgery as early as possible as advised by the doctors attended on her and the surgery as early as possible as advised by the doctors attended on her and the surgery is must, and cannot be avoided for which also she has to spent lakhs of rupees in future. In spite of all these she did not regain normalcy and even today she is confined to bed and suffering heavy pain and mental agony and financial loss, even if another proposed surgery is to be done in future. She cannot lead normal life as of others and particularly at the time of discharge of nature calls. It is further submitted one must attach her as attendant through out the rest of her life. Therefore, the petitioner sustained loss which cannot be estimated in terms of money but restricted to claim 20 lakhs as compensation.
The police of Rajanagaram Police Station registered a crime in No.56/2018 under Sec.338 I.P.C., and under Sec.134 (a) and (b) of M.V. Act and the same was pending
before the court. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st
respondent. The 3rd respondent is insurer of the said motor vehicle. The 2nd respondent is the owner of he vehicle and 1st respondent is a driver of vehicle are jointly and severally liable for the claim amount. That the petitioner became permanently disabled due to the accident, and loss sustained to the petitioner cannot be compensated in terms of money and the petitioner however, restrict the claim up to Rs.20,00,000/- on all grounds and pray to allow the petition.
3.On appearance, a counter is filed on behalf of the 1st respondent and an Adopting memo filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent adopting counter of R1 and adopting as his counter and a separate counter is filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent.
The 1st respondent in his counter denied most of the petition material averments and contended inter-alia that the 1st respondent is the driver of the lorry, the 2nd respondent is owner of the lorry and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the vehicle and all are responsible for payment of compensation to the petitioner and previously she has not filed any compensation against any respondent before any other court are all not true and correct. Further, it is contended the 1st respondent is the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident is also not true. The said vehicle was insured with the New India
Assurance Company and the said policy is in force. Due to the negligence of the deceased, the said accident was occurred and there is no negligence on the part of the 4 accused. The diver is also having no driving licence. The petitioner is also put to strict proof of alleged injuries and income, if any claim regarding the incident, that can be collected from the 3rd respondent who is insurance company. That the total compensation is not applicable with the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no cause of action for the petition and prays to dismiss the petition.
4.3rd respondent filed its counter denying most of the material averments and contended inter-alia that the liability of any defined under the provisions of M.V. Act and Contract of Insurance if any. The petitioner has to prove strictly that she is entitled to claim compensation from the respondent under the provisions of M.V. Act and the contract of Insurance. It is denied by R3 that the 1st respondent had a valid and effective driving licence. It is also denied that the vehicle bearing No.AP 31 TH 5555 had valid permit and fitness certificate and in the absence of valid and affective driving licence, permitted fitness certificate the respondent is not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent.
Only due to the rash and negligence of the driver in driving the vehicle bearing
No.AP 31 TH 5555 are not true and correct. There is no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. That the accident occurred only on account of rash and negligent driving of the husband of the petitioner in driving the two wheeler AP 37 J 6252. The allegation to the contra in the petition is not true and correct. It is also denied by the R3 that the petitioner is aged 38 years by the date of accident and that he is a housewife. That the petitioner has to prove strictly that the injuries received by her, the duration of the treatment and the disability, if any suffered by her. The averments in the petition that petitioner received injuries etc., are denied and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. The petitioner did not suffer any disability much less the permanent disability as alleged in the petition. The compensation claimed is arbitrary, excessive and out of proportion. The petitioner is not entitled to claim Rs.20,00,000/- as detailed under various heads.
The claim for interest is not tenable under law in any view the petitioner is to claim interest only from the date of the award not from the date of petition that too at 6% per annum.
5
The petitioner has to prove strictly she has not filed any claim application under Sec.140 of M.V. Act or any other provisions of M.V. Act basing on the cause of action petition before any other Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5.Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1.Whether the vehicle bearing No.AP31 TH 5555 had a valid, permit and fitness certificate as required under rules?
2.Whether driver of the crime vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident?
3.Whether the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the 1st respondent in driving the vehicle bearing No.AP 31 TH 5555?
4.Whether the accident occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the husband of the petitioner in driving the two wheeler AP 37 J 6252?
5.Whether the compensation claimed is arbitrary, excessive and out of proportionate?
6.Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim interest from the date of award only but not from the date of petition and that too @ 6% p.a.?
7.Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation as prayed for? If so, to what extent and against whom?
8.To what relief?
6.During the course of enquiry, on this petition, PW1 to 4 were examined, Ex.A1 to A10 were got marked on behalf of the petitioner. No witness is examined on behalf of the respondents but policy of Insurance Company under Ex.B1 was marked with consent of both sides on behalf of R3 Insurance company.
7.Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the record. Petitioner counsel filed Written Arguments.
8.Issue No.1 to 6:-
I have taken up issue Nos.1 to 6 to my consideration, as those are inter-related.
This is a case of 3rd party sustained injuries and the petitioner field by her under Sec.166 of M.V. Act by the petitioner who sustained injuries in a motor accident occurred on 08-03-2018 and therefore the petitioner claimed total compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- against the driver owner and insurance company who are R1 to R3.
9.On the side of the petitioner the petitioner/injured was examined and she filed Ex.A.1 to A6 in support of the claim before Advocate Commissioner. Further, 6 petitioner side husband of PW1 as PW2 corroborated her evidence and documents injuries, surgeries, treatment etc. Further the petitioner got examined the doctors at
Rajamahendravaram on commission as PW3 and PW4 who gave evidence with regard to surgeries, treatment, medical expenses etc., and produced relevant hospital record which are marked as Ex.A6, Ex.A7 to A9 surgeries etc., conducted by them on the petitioner at their respective hospital.
10.The following are the documents filed by the petitioner and marked as exhibits on behalf of the petitioner on examination of PW1. Ex.A1 attested copy of
F.I.R., Ex.A2 attested copy of wound certificate, Ex.A3 is attested copy of M.V.I. report,
Ex.A4 is attested copy of charge sheet, Ex.A5 is bunch of medical bills of ‘APEX’ hospital and ‘KIMS’ hospital worth of Rs.9,74,589/-, Ex.A6 the discharge summary and medical record of ‘APEX’ hospital, Rajamahendravaram, Ex.A7 is the discharge summary, Ex.A8 is medical reports and treatment issued by ‘KIMS’ hospital, Ex.A9 is MRI reports and x-ray films of ‘KIMS’ hospital and Apex Hospital in 16 numbers, Ex.A10 is indoor case record maintained in ‘APEX’ Hospital, Rajahmahendravaram.
11.The petitioner as PW1 in his chief-examination on affidavit re-iterated the petition contents by deposing the manner of accident and about the rash and negligent driving of the R1 and the injuries and treatment taken by her. Initially, at GSL hospital, Rajanagaram and later at ‘KIMS’ hospital, Hyderabad and she has also deposed the medical expenses incurred by her in Apex hospital and KIMS hospital and the medical records. The husband of PW1 was examined as PW2 who deposed in his chief- examination on affidavit, reiterating the version of the PW1 in all material aspects. PW3 and PW4 are the Medical Officers (Doctors) who examined on commission to prove the treatment and operation conducted by them on PW1 and proof of gravity of injuries and disability sustained by the PW1. Though the 1st and 2nd respondents contested the matter, they did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence with all respondent insurance company, they also did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence and admitting the accident and filed insurance policy copy as valid coverage by the date of accident which was marked by court as Ex.B1.
7
12.Ex.A1 is attested copy of FIR which shows the crime was registered by the police against the R1 driver, Ex.A4 is attested copy of charge sheet which shows that R1 was charged with the offence under Sec. 338 IPC. The oral evidence of PW1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence of PW1 to PW4 amply shows that the petitioner proved and established accident occurred due to the rash and negligent and high-speed driving of the driver of the crime vehicle Oil tanker lorry bearing No.AP 31 TH 5555 which was driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn dashed the scooter from back side on which the petitioner and her husband were travelling and PW1 and her husband were fell on the road and they are dragged to some distance by the oil tanker which caused the petitioner to sustain brutal injuries to her private parts, whereas her husband received simple injuries. The petitioner sustained crush injury in vegina and anus and hip joint/pelvic bone was broken. Immediately, she was shifted to G.S.L. Hospital for first aid and later she was shifted to ‘APEX’ hospital
Rajamahendravaram on the same day. There she underwent an emergency surgery called ‘POLOSTIMY’ was done and a tube was fixed open to Anus to drain out motion. After surgery, the petitioner was discharged on 20-03-2018 by ‘APEX’ hospital and advised to shift her to a super specialty hospital, as her condition became critical and need emergency surgery to ‘PELVIC BONE’. Thus, in such condition, she was took and admitted in ‘KIMS’ Hospital at Secunderabad and there ‘PELVIC’ operation was conducted, she underwent multiple surgical procedures in operation theatre. She was operated with anterior ring fixed “ORIF” with two recon plates were also fixed and plastic surgeries were done to Anus and she was kept as inpatient for about 42 days and discharged. In spite of this, as it is a super speciality hospital, the treatment and expensive surgeries conducted to the petitioner, could not get relief. On the other hand, she was suffering with unbearable pain and functional disability etc. It is also advised by the doctors of ‘KIMS’ hospital, Secunderabad that she has to undergo another critical surgery in future and thus, the petitioner had to spend an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The petitioner already spent an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for medical treatment and for medical bills and the same are confronted by the doctors examined as PW3 and PW4.
13.Though, R1 to R3 were contesting the case, no oral or documentary evidence adduced by them except marking Ex.B1 insurance policy copy on behalf of 8 insurance company . At the stage, it is just and relevant to refer and extract Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidyadhararao Vs. Manikya reported in 1999 (3)
ALT -1 wherein it is held:- “Where a party to the suit does not appear Into the witness box and state his own case on Oath and does not offer himself to be cross- Examined by the other side, a presumption would Arise that the case set up by him is incorrect.”
Further, Sec.114 Illustration (g) of Indian Evidence Act” that evidence which could be and is not produced would if produced to be un-favourable to the person who with hold it.
14.In view of the above, and as per the arguments of both sides, it is clear that though the counters of R1 to R3 are on record, (no witness is examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 except marking Ex.B1 insurance policy on behalf of the R3). As per the settled legal position as a rule where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness and state his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is correct.
In this matter, though, counters of R1 to R3 are filed, no witness is examined and no documents are marked on behalf of R1 to R3 except among the Ex.P1 to P4 which can be presumed the evidence could be produced if not would be unfavourable to the person who withhold it, they are unafavourable, is applicable to the facts on hand and it can be presumed that the evidence which would be and it not produced to be unfavourable to the person who withhold by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India since R1 to R3 have taken several pleas the respondents failed to prove the case by adducing legal evidence. Thereby the respondents failed to prove the vehicle bearing No.AP 31 TH 5555 had no a valid permit and fitness certificate as require under rules to prove the burden. It is the contentions of the petitioner and she proved that vehicle bearing No.AP 31 TH 5555 and a valid permit and fitness certificate as required under rules and it is also the case of the petitioner and proved that the driver of the crime vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. But the respondents failed to prove that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the crime vehicle. As per the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ex.A1 and A2 it is clear that the petitioner proved that the accident occurred due to 9 rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP 31 TH 5555. The respondents failed to disprove it. Further the respondents though pleading that the accident occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of two wheeler AP 37
J 6252 whereas the petitioner proved and established that the accident was not occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the husband of the petitioner in driving the two wheeler AP 37 J 6252 though pleaded that the respondent is entitled for for compensation claimed is arbitrary, excessive and out of proportion no respondent turn in witness box to state his case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, as per the Judgment of Supreme Court in a case
Vidyadhararao Vs. Manikya and thereby, at the appropriate backdrop the ensuing paras of this Judgment the same shall be decided along with other issues by this court.
Hence, it cannot be said that the compensation claimed is arbitrary, excessive and out of proportionate.
15.No documentary proof is filed by either side prove that the income and age of the petitioner as on the date of the accident. In such circumstances, the age of the petitioner can be considered as 38 years as mentioned in the wound certificate. (As per the settled legal position in case of death of claimant the age of the deceased can be considered as entered in inquest report and post-mortem examination report). On the same analysis, this court is being considered the age of the petitioner as mentioned in
Ex.A2 wound certificate since no documentary proof is filed regarding the age and income of the petitioner as on the date of the accident it is not in dispute that the petitioner is an housewife extending service who are family members as a home maker. In such case, as per the recent legal position, the notional income of the claimant can be considered as
Rs.6,000/- per month and accordingly, this court was pleased to consider the income of petitioner as per the evidence of PW1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of PW3 and PW4 coupled with Ex.A1 to A10 the accident and the injury were well established by the petitioner with oral and documentary evidence and the evidence was not contrary to the evidence of PW1 by any of the respondent.
16.R1 to R3 were though contesting they did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. And they admitted the accident and filed policy copy having valid coverage by the date of accident which was marked as Ex.B1. Thus it is proved that the 10 act of rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent on behalf of respondents caused to accident. Thus it is proved that act of rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent is caused to the accident. So the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 31 TH 555. Thus the respondents 1 to 3 were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation if awarded.
17.That the petitioner was aged about 38 years as discussed above, as per her wound certificate. The petitioner is a housewife and having two children and husband used look-after the welfare of the children with care and caution. The petitioner being housewife, serves to domestic needs and the petitioner suffered from very brutal injuries to her private parts and was operated several times and suffered heavy and unbearable pain and her life was almost said to be ended at a very young age of 38 years. Such sufferance is giving great shock and tension to the entire other family members. Apart from this there is no chance to leaving her lonely even for a second.
Thus the petitioner and also the other family members severally affected without any hope of development in future and social, economical and family life of petitioner and her family is severally affected. The condition expressing by the petitioner and her family was well admitted in the deposition of the Doctors PW3 and PW4 and who literally stated that there is no possibility to recover the condition of the petitioner and she has to live with same condition throughout her life. The entire family economical condition was very badly affected and they are not in a position to bear even day to day medical expenses.
Therefore, as per the petitioner counsel arguments she is entitled more compensation than claimed. In view of the admitted and established facts and condition of the petitioner, Petitioner counsel submitted that she is ready and willing to pay the D.C.F., if any, if the court grants more than the amount claimed. The petitioner counsel further argument is with this accident, the petitioner suffered 100% bodily and functional disability and she lost all pleasures and one person must accompany with her round the clock for the rest of her lief.
18.The petitioner counsel further argued the doctors from ‘APEX’
Hospital, Rajamahendravaram and ‘KIMS’ Hospital, Secunderabad are opined that the petitioner is confined to bed for the entire life period and the PW3 and PW4 are opined that the petitioner was sustained 100% disability. In such circumstance, the quantum of compensation is to be taken into consideration the future prospects and the disability and 11 also the other aspects. During the period of in-patient in both the hospitals the petitioner spent an amount of Rs.9,74,589/- and also the doctors have been advised for the future operation, for it requires another amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Approximately) without the assistance of the other even cannot move from bed the entire daily activities are being to be done on bed itself having no chance to move from bed. The petitioner counsel further argued on examination before the commission the PW3 doctor who treated the petitioner in the ‘APEX’ hospital has stated that during the course of inpatient treatment the patient was underwent DIVERSION ON COLOSTOMY ICU care with ventilation multiple blood transfusions high dosage of antibodies. The petitioner has bad laceration wound of perineum with cross Disruption of entire perineum from coccy to Vagina with extension of injury deeply into retro peritoneum and the petitioner was in the hospital in
Haemodynamic shock for prolonged period. The petitioner has total disruption of her private parts including vagina anus (motion passage area) and hand disruption of Pelvic bones as mentioned in the would certificate Ex.A2. She may not able to attend to her routine work and was confined to bed for rest of the life period.
On further examination of the PW3 has confronted the Ex.A5 bunch of medical bills to the extent which are used while treating the petitioner in the ‘APEX’ hospital as an inpatient and also confronted the other exhibits from Ex.A6 to Ex.A10.
The following Judgments/citations are referred and cited by the petitioner counsel regarding the case facts and quantum aspects.
Net copy of decision in civil appeal No.2567 of 2020 reportable on the point that to be considered about the future prospectus for the injuries is sustained.
And also considered the disability of injured as per the evidence of the doctor who treated the injured.
C) For The self employee or other who have no income proof the minimum wages can be considered even for the services of the Housewife.
2.A) With regard to injury of a private part of woman at most importance and high range of compensation has to be received by the victim in the accident and the said legal position was settled by the Hon’ble Gujaraty High Court in Judgment reported in 1983-ACJ page 779. (Not submitted the copy of the same by the petitioner counsel) 12
B) Karnataka- Dharwuad bench High court page No.1284 year 2020 ACJ. The same facts are in this case also. (The said citation is submitted by petitioner to court).
3) It is a settled law that injury cases, the amounts to be granted on different heads was very clearly framed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by their Judgment reported ion “AIR-2013-SC PAGE 2974”.
4) So far as the income of housewife is concerned as per the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court high value though no fixed parameters for the household services of housewife are to be estimated by the each and individual family – Bar and
Bench fixing the additional income for the house maker.
5) While calculating compensation in injury cases the court is empowered to grant compensation under the head of loss of future income also. Thus the future loss of income in the present case is also applicable. The said ruling was given by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case reported in AIR 2010 SC PAGE 2630 – HIGH COURT OF NEW
DELHHI PETITION no.74299/16.
6) It is settled law in AP High Court latest case law on disability.
There is no need to examine medical board doctor for disability certificate. The treatment of doctor who treated the petitioner can assess the disability and the same it to be considered.
7) TAMILNADU – MADRAS HIGH COURT PAGE NO.2525 YEAR 2020 ACJ – Spine injury complete bed rest for entire life period 100% of disability as per the evidence of the doctor future prospects to be considered.
8) TAMIL NADU – MADRAS HIGH COURT PAGE No.25 YEAR 2020 ACJ- Adopted suitable multiplier for the age group of the injured doctor opined disability as per the evidence of the doctor along with other prospects to be considered.
9) 2011 SAR (CIVIL) page 90: In injury cases no deduction towards personal expenses should be made while granting compensation.
10) S.C. CIVIL APPEAL No.5520 of 2013 – To calculate the compensation for the injury sustained to the petitioner is pelvic region. FRACTURE TO PELVIS AND TOTAL
RUPTURE OF URETHRA. The petitioner is complete bed ridden even after treatment given by the doctor.
13
11) Decision saket courts High Court of New Delhi Petition NO.75299/16.
Future prospects, disability for the injuries as per the Doctor, Future medical treatment, special diet, attendant charges, loss of amenities, shortening of life as the petitioner is completely held bed ridden are to be considered.
12) Decision of S.C. CIVIL APPEAL No.5370-5372/13
To compute compensation on gravity of injury sustained to the petitioner and the disability of the petitioner as per the evidence of the doctor to be taken into consideration.
Above citations referred by petitioner counsel and submitted its Photostat copy except 2A citation mentioned in the written arguments of the petitioner counsel amply applicable to the present case facts.
When there is no documentary proof filed by both sides regarding the income of the petitioner, the Notional income of the petitioner as per the settled legal position as
Rs.6000/- Notional income is considered as per the latest Judgment referred above, the income of the housewife are to be estimated by each individual family – bar and bench fixing the additional income for the house-maker and further as per AP High Court
Judgment on disability as referred above, there is no need to examine Medical Board doctor for disability certificate. The treatment of doctor who treated the injured petitioner can asses the disability and the same is to be considered.
As per the Madras High Court Judgment reported in 2525 year 2020 ACJ - Spine injury complete bed rest for entire life period 100% of disability as per the evidence of the doctor future prospects to be considered. Likewise, the Hon’ble Judgment of the Madras
High Court page No.25 year 2020 ACJ – Adopted suitable multiplier for the age group of the injured doctor opined disability as per the evidence of the doctor along with other prospects to be considered.
In view of the above, citations, the future prospects of the housewife, who sustained 100% of disability as per the evidence of the doctor.
9) 2011 SAR (CIVIL) Page 90: In injury cases no deduction towards personal expenses should be made while granting compensation.
10) S.C. CIVIL APPEAL No.5520 fo 2013 – To calculate the compensation for the injury sustained to the petitioner is pelvic region. FRACTURE TO PELVIS AND TOTAL 14
RUPTURE OF URETHRA. The petitioner is complete bed ridden even after treatment given by the doctor.
11) Decision Saket courts High Court of New Delhi Petition No.75299/16. Future prospects, disability for the injuries as per the Doctor, future medical treatment, Special
Diet, Attendant charges, Loss of amenities, shortening of life as the petitioner is completely bed ridden are to be considered.
The decision of SC CIVIL APPEAL no.5370-5372/13 to compute compensation on gravity of injury sustained to the petitioner and the disability of the petitioner as per the evidence of the doctor to be taken into consideration.
In the light of above citations and evidence on record, since notional income of
Rs.6,000/-per month to be taken as per settled legal position is such is the case as per
Apex Court decision, the future prospects of the age of the ground of the injured. The age of the petitioner is about 38 years, as per Ex.A2 wound certificate as per injured/petitioner. The multiplier is 15. As per Sarla Varma case the calculations are 6000 Notional income.
In the case of injuries, medical expenses of injured cannot be deducted as no legal position referred above and as per High Court Judgment, 50% of future prospectus shall be given as per the Gujarat High Court Judgment details mentioned below:-
Accordingly, Notional income of Rs.6,000/- to Rs.3,000/- income 50% Notional income for future profits.
Compensation for the injuries sustained by PW1 Rs.6,000 x Rs.3,000 = Rs.9,000/- 9,000 x 12 x 15=Rs.16,20,000-00
Medical bills and other tests expenditure under EX.A5 9,74,589-00
Pain and suffering 1,50,000-00
Special diet 2,50,000-00
Attendant charges (Round ‘O’ clock) 5,00,000-00 to the entire remaining life of petitioner
Future medication charges including operation if any 2,00,000-00 Loss of amenities shortening of life 2,00,000-00 ------------------ 38,94,589-00 15
The petitioner claimed only Rs.20,00,000/- in this claim petition and the petitioner’s counsel argued to avoid delay in this matter, to award just and reasonable compensation as per Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
In a case between Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and others Vs. Ahmedabad
Municipal Trasnport Service reported in 2013 ACJ 2733 referred it is held “Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 section 168(1)---Just compensation---Whether compensation more than claimed can be awarded---Held: yes; it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal/appellate court to award just and reasonable compensation to the claimant to mitigate his hardship and agony. (2003 ACJ 12(SC) followed).
19.In view of the above, if the petitioner is entitled for Rs.38,94,589/- and against the respondents and the compensation claimed which is very low than entitled as per law, the compensation claimed by the petitioner cannot be said that it is arbitrary, excessive and disproportionate.
20.In view of the above, though the petitioner claimed Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation and per law and in view of the above discussion, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.38,94,589/- towards just and reasonable compensation on payment of D.C.F., if any.
21.In view of the above discussion, the petitioner proved and established that the vehicle bearing No.AP 31 TH 5555 had a valid licence and fitness certificate are required under rules and the respondents failed to prove contra to it.
Further, the petitioner proved the driver of the crime vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the same at the time of accident. The respondent failed to prove contra to it. Further, the petitioner proved and establishing that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving on part of the 1st respondent in driving the crime vehicle No.AP 31 TH 5555 and the respondent failed to prove contra to it. Further, the respondent failed to prove the accident occurred only on account of rash and negligent driving of the husband of the petitioner in driving the two wheeler AP 37 J 6252. The petitioner proved that that the accident occurred not due to rash and negligent driving on account of the husband of the petitioner in driving the two wheeler bearing
No.AP 37 J 6252. Further, the petitioner proved and establishing that compensation claimed is not arbitrary, excessive and out of disproportion. Further, though the respondent pleaded further the petitioner proved and established the that the 16 petitioner only claimed interest from the date of petition at 7.5% p.a., and not from the date of of award only at the rate of 6% p.a. Respondents failed to prove contra to it.
22.The petitioner has prove that the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.38,94,589/- as just and reasonable compensation against the R1 to
R3 with joint and several liability subject to payment of D.C.F., if any, with subsequent interest and costs at the rate of 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till deposit. Issue
Nos.1 to 7 are decided accordingly in favour of the petitioner and against R1 to R3 accordingly.
23.In the result, the petition is allowed granting Rs.38,94,589/- as just and reasonable compensation in favour of petitioner and against R1 to R3 with joint and several liability and with costs and subsequent interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit subject to payment of D.C.F., if any. Office is directed to prepare the decree on payment of D.C.F., if any. Two months time is granted to the respondents 1 to 3 to deposit the said compensation amount as above. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same with costs and accrued interest thereon as per law and rules. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer(Gr.I), corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 3rd day of May, 2021.
Sd/- T. Venkata Subba Rao
CHAIRMAN,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum- VIII Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioner:
PW1: Vegi Lakshmi Satya Priya (Petitioner injured) PW2: Vegi Lakshmana Rao (eye witness) PW3: Dr.R.B.P.R. Chowdary PW4: Dr.Srinivs Kasha
For Respondents:
RW1: J.V. Rama Tarakam (Assistant Manager of R3 company) RW1 evidence eschewed on 06-04-2021.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Petitioner:
Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.56/2018 under Sec.338 I.P.C., registered by the P.S., Rajanangaram P.S., 17
Ex.A2: Attested copy of the wound certificate of PW1
Ex.A3: Attested copy of M.V.I. Inspector report
Ex.A4: Attested copy of charge sheet filed in II Spl. J.S.C. Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram
Ex.A.5: Bunch of Medical Bills and copy of case sheet issued by Apex Hospital, Rajamahendravaram totaling bills of Rs.9,74,589/-
Ex.A6: Discharge summary issued by Apex Hospital, Rajamahendravaram in faovur of PW1
Ex.A7: Discharge summary with assessment record issued by KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad
Ex.A8: Bunch of reports in favour of PW1 issued by KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad Ex.A9: Bunch of x-ray films total 16 issued by KIMS Hospital, Hyderabad in faovur of PW1
Ex.A10: Inpatient record of PW1 issued by Apex Hospital, Rajamahendravaram
For Respondents:
Ex.B1: Attested copy of insurance company issued by R3 company
Sd/- T. Venkata Subba Rao
CHAIRMAN,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum- VIII Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram.