1
IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
CUM I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, CHITTOOR.
Present: Sri T.Venkateswara Reddy, Chairman, MACT cum I Additional District Judge, Chittoor.
Monday, the Twenty Eight (28th ) day of March, 2019.
M.V.O.P. No. 2 of 2016
Between:
Minor V.Sasidhar, rep. by his mother and natural guardian Smt S.Rekha, W/o Late V.Madhan, Lakshmipuram village, Ragimanupenta post, Bangarupalem Mandal
... Petitioner
And:
1. S.Prabhakar, S/o Gurunatham, aged 35years, Residing at D.No.232, K.M.Kandriga village, Ragimanupenta post, Bangarupalem Mandal (driver cumowner)
2. Shriram General Insurance Co., Ltd.,Head Office, Insudstral area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan
...Respondents.
This petition coming on before me for final hearing on 19072018 and upon perusing the petition, written statement and other relevant papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.Purushotham Advocate for petitioner and of Sri K.Udya Kumar, advocate for 1st Respondent, and Sri E.Shanmugam, advocate for the 2nd respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:
A W A R D
1.This is the petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 166 (1) (a ) of Motor Vehicles Act for a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/for sustaining the injuries to the petitioner in a Motor Vehicle Accident.
2.The case of the petitioner as seen from the averments made in the petition is to the following effect:
The petitioner is a minor boy and was 4 years old as on the date of incident. The minor petitioner is represented by his mother. On 2 06112014 at about 1100 AM at Lakshmipuram village while the petitioner was standing infront of his house, the respondent No.1 who is the drivercumowner of the TATA Motors luggage Auto bearing No. AP03
X4354 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained bleeding injury to his right foot. The petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital,
Bangarupalem and from there the petitioner was shifted to Government
Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor and as per the advise of doctors, the petitioner was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore and the petitioner admitted as inpatient in the said hospital and the petitioner was also undergone surgery. Police, Bangarupalem Police station registered a case in
Cr.No.250 of 2015 against the respondent No.1 and after investigation police filed a charge sheet under section 338 IPC fixing negligence on the part of the respondent No.1. The petitioner undergone surgery on 06.11.2014 at CMC Hospital, Vellore and the petitioner incurred more than Rs.1,00,000/ towards medical expenses and a sum of Rs.50,000/ towards transportation charges and towards psychotherapy. Due to the injury the petitioner is unable to walk and the petitioner sustained permanent disability to his right foot and the petitioner is suffering mentally and physically. The respondent No.1 being the owner –cum driver of the crime vehicle and the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the crime vehicle are liable to pay the compensation amount payable to the petitioner. With this the petitioner requested the court for grant of compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/ from the respondents.
02. The respondent No.1 filed the counter alleging that the respondent No.1 is the owner of the crime vehicle and the respondent No.1 was not the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the incident. The 3 brother of the respondent No.1 was the driver of the crime vehicle at that time. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle and the incident happened due to the negligence of the petitioner. With this the respondent No.1 requested the court for dismissal of the petition with costs.
03. The respondent No.2 filed the counter denying the involvement of the crime vehicle in the incident, injuries sustained to the petitioner, expenditure incurred for the petitioner for treatment for the injuries sustained to the petitioner as mentioned in the petition. The driver of the crime vehicle was not in possession of valid driving license at that time to drove the crime vehicle. The respondent No.1 by knowing the same, handed the vehicle to the driver of the crime vehicle and the respondent No.1 violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The respondent No.1 colluded with the petitioner and not cooperating with the respondent No.2 for settlement of the claim. The claim of the petitioner is excessive and the petitioner is not entitled for compensation.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:
1. Whether the accident in question caused due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of TATA
motors Luggage auto bearing Regn. No. AP03x
4354?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation
If so? to what amount and from whom?
5.During the course of enquiry of this petition, PWs.1 to 3 are examined for the petitioner and Exs.A.1 to A.8 are marked for the petitioner.
4
6. PW1 is the mother of the petitioner, PW2 is the eye witness to the accident and PW3 is the Pediatric Surgeon at CMC
Hospital, Vellore who treated the petitioner.
7. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.250 of 2015,
Ex.A2 is certified copy of wound certificate of Petitioner, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the Accident Information Report, Ex.A4 is the certified copy of the charge sheet filed by the police after completion of investigation, Ex.A5 is Medical bills, Ex.A6 is the Photographs along with
C.D. Ex.A7 is the copy of the driving license of the respondent No.1 and
Ex.A8 is the copy of the fitness certificate of the crime vehicle.
8. On the other hand the Junior Assistant working in RTA
Office Chittoor is examined as RW1 for the respondent No.2 and Ex.X1 authorization letter and extract of driving license particulars are marked
for the respondent No.2 through RW1.
9. The respondent No.2 filed a petition under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the same is allowed.
10. Heard the arguments submitted by both side counsel.
11.ISSUE No.1:
The minor petitioner is the injured. The case of the petitioner is that on 06112014 at about 1100 AM at Lakshmipuram village while the petitioner was standing infront of his house, the respondent No.1 who is the drivercumowner of the TATA Motors luggage Auto bearing No. AP03 5
X4354 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained bleeding injury to his right foot. The further case of the petitioner is that on the complaint of
PW2, police registered a case in Cr.No. 250 of 2014 of Bangarupalem police station against the respondent No.1 and after completion of investigation, police filed a charge sheet against the respondent No.1 under section 338 IPC. Ex.P1 is certified copy of FIR and Ex.P4 is certified copy of charge sheet.
12. The petitioner is relying on evidence of PW2 eye witness to the accident and on Ex.A1 FIR and Ex.A4 Charge sheet field by the police after the completion of investigation into the case. The evidence of PW2 eye witness to the incident and Ex.A1 and A4 are to the effect that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent
No.1 who is the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time. The respondents have not placed any rebuttal evidence to the evidence of PW 2 and to Exs.A1 and A4. Under this circumstance the court has no other option, except to place reliance on the evidence of PW2 and on Exs.A1 and A4. Placing reliance on the evidence of PW2 and on Exs.A1 and A4, it is held that the respondent No.1 was the driver of the crime vehicle as on the date of the accident. From the evidence of PW2 eye witness to the incident and from Exs.A1 and A4, it is held that the incident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 who was the driver of the crime vehicle bearing No. AP03X 4354 at the time of incident and it is also held from the evidence of PWs1 and 2 and from Exs.A1 and A4 that the minor petitioner sustained injury in the accident.
6
13. In view of the above all reasons, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.
14. Issue No.2:
On issue No.1, it is held that the respondent No.1 is the ownercumdriver of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP03X4354 and the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent
No.1. The respondent No.2 is not disputing the fact that the respondent
No.2 is the insurer of the crime vehicle. Therefore it is held that the respondent No.1 is ownercumdriver of the crime vehicle and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the crime vehicle. Since on issue No.1 it is held that the incident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent NO.1, both the respondents liable to pay the compensation amount payable to the petitioner. Ex.A7 is copy of driving license of the respondent No.1. Ex.A7 is marked with the consent of the respondent
No.2. As seen from Ex.A7, it is clear that the respondent No.1 was having driving license to drove light motor vehicle and the same is valid as on the date of incident. The respondent No.2 is not disputing Ex.A7 copy of the driving license of the respondent No.1. Hence from the evidence of RW.1 it cannot be said that the respondent No.1 had no valid driving license to drove the crime vehicle as on the date of the incident. Therefore the contention of the respondent No.2 that the respondent No.1 violated the terms and conditions of the policy is not acceptable. Since the respondent
No.2 is not disputing the existence of the policy as on the date of the incident and as the court comes to a conclusion on issue No.1that the incident happened due to the negligence of the driving of the respondent
NO.1, both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation amount payable to the petitioner.
7
Coming to the quantum of compensation amount: Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the wound certificate of the petitioner, in Ex.A2 it is mentioned that the petitioner sustained deglove injury of the right foot over the dorsum. From Ex.A2 it is held that the petitioner sustained injury to his right foot. PW3 is the Pediatric surgeon, CMC Hospital,
Vellore, who treated the petitioner. PW3 doctor stated in his evidence that the petitioner was admitted as inpatient on 06112014 in CMC
Hospital, Vellore and the petitioner undergone surgery for deglove injury for his right foot and the petitioner was discharged on 11112014. PW3 doctor stated in his evidence that there is deformity to the right foot of the petitioner and that the petitioner has to suffer during his life time. The petitioner cannot wear normal chappels and the petitioner has to wear special chappels . The petitioner feel inconvenience due to deforming.
The second toe can be brought to normal stage provided the petitioner go for another surgery, it may cost of Rs. 70,000/ to 80,000/.
From the above evidence of the doctor and from Ex.A2 and
A6 photographs, it is clear that there is a deformity to the left foot of the petitioner and the second toe of the left foot is pulled up. In view of this and considering the evidence of the doctor that the petitioner may feel inconvenience due to deformity, a sum of Rs.50,000/ is awarded to the petitioner towards pain and suffering.
Considering the evidence of the doctor that the petitioner undergone surgery and considering Ex.A5 medical bills, a sum of
Rs.35,000/ is awarded to the petitioner towards medical expenses. A sum of Rs.8,000/ is awarded to the petitioner towards transportation, 8 attendant charges. Further considering the nature of the injury sustained
for the petitioner, a sum of Rs.10,000/ is awarded to the petitioner
towards extra nourishment charges. Since the doctor PW3 stated in his evidence, the petitioner cannot wear normal chappels and the petitioner requires special chappels, a sum of Rs.6,000/ is awarded towards special shoes for the petitioner. Considering the evidence of the doctor PW3 that the second toe can be brought to normal stage provided the petitioner go for another surgery, which may costs of Rs.70,000/ to 80,000/, a sum of Rs.50,000/ is awarded to the petitioner towards future medical expenses. In total the petitioner is entitled for a compensation amount of
Rs.1,59,00000
The break up of compensation amount awarded to the petitioner is as follows:
(a) Pain and suffering : Rs. 50,00000
(b) Medical expenses : Rs. 35,00000 © Transportation and Attendant charges: Rs. 8,00000
(d) Extra nourishment charges Rs. 10,00000
(e) Towards Special shoes Rs. 6,00000
(f) Medical expenses for future surgery Rs. 50,00000
Total Rs. 1,59,00000
In view of the above all reasons, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for a compensation amount of Rs.1,59,000/ against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
In the result, the petition is allowed for Rs.1,59,000/ (Rupees
One lakh and fifty nine thousands only) against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally with proportionate costs and with future interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petitioner till the date of realization of the amount. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are 9 directed to pay compensation amount within a period of two months. The entire compensation amount payable to the petitioner shall be kept in fixed deposit till the petitioner attains majority. The advocate fee is fixed at
Rs.2,000/ (Rupees two thousands only).
Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in Open Court, this the 28th day of March, 2019.
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Chittoor.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:
Witnesses examined on behalf of the
Petitioner: Respondents: P.W.1 Rekha RW1 C. Rajasekhar P.W.2 G.Kumar P.W.3 Dr. Thrun John K.Jacob
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
Petitioner: Ex.A.1 ... Certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.A.2 ... Certified copy of Wound certificate Ex.A.3 ... Certified copy of Accident Information report Ex.A.4 ... Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.A.5 ... Bunch of Medical bills Ex.A.6 ... Photographs along with CD Ex.A.7 … Copy of driving license Ex.A.8 … Copy of fitness certificate
Respondents: Ex.X.1… Authorization Letter
Chairman, MACTcumI ADJ, CTR.