1 M.V.O.P.NO288 of 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS (II
FTC) JUDGE:: NALGONDA
(Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2021)
PRESENT: SMT.V.SHARADA DEVI,
Spl. Sessions Judge for Fast tracking cases relating to Atrocities against women, Nalgonda FAC: IV Addl.District and Sessions Judge (II FTC), Nalgonda
M.V.O.P.No.288 of 2015
Between :-
Puptta Laxmi, W/o Janardhan Reddy, age:43 years, Occ:Business and agriculturist, R/o Parada village of Kattangur Mandal, Nalgonda district.
….. Claimant
A N D
1.Lokasani Narsi Reddy, S/o Laxminarsimha Reddy, age:48 yeas, Occ:Driver-cum-owner of tractor bearing No.AP.24.UB. T/R 6886, R/o H.No.1-164, Kattangur village and Mandal Nalgonda district.
2.The IFFCO TOKIO LTD General Insurance Company Lt., S.B.U, 2nd floor No.31., Above Conagra Fooda Lane Opp.D.B.R.Diagnostics S.D.Road, Secunderabad – 3 Certificate No.1-2HKNRS P400 Police No.86146313 valid from 20.12.2013 to 19.12.2014.
…Respondents
This petition is coming on this date for final hearing on 18.01.2021
before me in the presence of Sri T.Chandra Shekar Reddy, counsel for
claimant and Sri A.Suresh Babu, counsel for Respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 remained expartie and after having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following :- : J U D G M E N T :
1.The present petition is filed by the claimant/petitioner under
Sec.166 of A.P.Motor vehicle rules 1989 r/w sec 140 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- along with interest @ 18%
P.A from the date of accident to till the date of realization, for the injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident.
2.The averments of the petition in brief are:
The petitioner is an agriculturist by profession and also a business lady. On 08.02.2014 at 3.00 PM she along with her husband (Janardhan
Reddy) were proceeding from their native place on splendor motorcycle bearing No.AP.24.AB.0283 in order to go to Narketpally. Her husband was 2 M.V.O.P.NO288 of 2015 riding the motorcycle at moderate speed. At about 3.45 PM when they reached near Renuka Yellamma Temple near Madhava Yadavally village then the offending vehicle i.e., tractor driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed had dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner in parallel direction, due to which the injured fell down from the motorcycle and the tractor wheel ran over her legs due to which she sustained fracture injuries on her left high waist, left hand and body.
Immediately she was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally where she took first aid and on account of her serious condition she was referred to
Kamineni Hospital, L.B.Nagar Hyderabad where she was admitted as inpatient. The matter was reported to Narketpally police who registered the case in Cr.No.28/2014 for the offences under sections 337 and 338 of
IPC against the driver of the tractor. The petitioner was hale and healthy prior to the accident. She was aged 43 years by the time of accident. She was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing agriculture and also by doing business. Andhra Pradesh Khadi village Industries board, Nalgonda has granted loan of Rs.15,00,000/- vide sanction letter No.AD-Nalgonda
Municipality/APKVIB/PMEGP/MMS CONSENT 2013-2014/256 dated 06.02.2014 with the consent of Canara Bank, Nalgonda branch but she lost that opportunity on account of the accident. She used to contribute all her earnings for the welfare and maintenance of her family but due to the accident she was totally bed ridden and lost her earnings and further became permanently disabled person. She was discharged from the hospital on 19.03.2014 with an advice to re-admit to undergo further operations. She also took physiotherapy treatment at Sai Balaji Hospital,
Rock town, Nagole, Hyderabad and got admitted in Kamineni Hospital,
L.B.Nagar Hyderabad on 10.09.2014 and discharged on 11.09.2014 by preparing her for plastic surgery. On 24.10.2014 she underwent plastic surgery operation. During the course of treatment she suffered lot of pain and suffering and was in the hospital for ten days as inpatient and undergone several operations for the fractured parts. Due to crush injury on her waist, the lower level of the waist portion got totally paralyzed and 3 M.V.O.P.NO288 of 2015 she is totally confined to bed and unable to attend her personal works.
She is also taking follow up treatment in the hospital, upto her discharge and she has spent an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards medical expenses. They have also engaged one person to attend the petitioner even after her discharge from the hospital. Hence, for the mental agony, physical suffering and financial difficulties suffered by the petitioner she is claiming an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- under all counts to meet the ends of justice. Respondent No.1 being the owner, Respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to pay the petitioner. Hence, the petition.
3. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 set exparte on 02.12.2015 for
non filing of their counters. I.A.No.510/2015 was filed by
Respondent No.2 to set aside the exparte order passed against it
and the same was allowed. Counter of respondent No.2 filed,
4. The respondent No.2 which is the insurance company filed its counter contending that they do not admit the manner of accident including the involvement of the offending vehicle i.e., tractor bearing
No.AP24.UB.TR.6886. It is further stated that, the alleged accident said to have occurred on 08.02.2014 at 1500 hours but the complaint was lodged on 10.02.2014 at 1815 hours and the reason for delay was not explained.
The petitioner in collusion with respondent No.1 gave false complaint in order to get wrongful gain from respondent No.2 company. Until the involvement of the offending vehicle is proved, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further stated that, the accident occurred due to the gross negligence on the part of the husband of petitioner who drove the motorcycle on the date of accident as such their company is not liable. The claim of the claimant suffers from the defect of non-joinder and mis-joinder of proper and necessary parties as the claimant/petitioner failed to implead the owner and insurer of the motorcycle splendor bearing No.AP.AB.0283. The owner of the vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 gave the offending vehicle to the driver who has no valid 4 M.V.O.P.NO288 of 2015 driving licence and thereby violated the provisions of M.V.Act. The driver of the offending vehicle is not having valid driving licence as on the date of accident and the said vehicle is not in worthy condition to ply on the road. It is further stated that, the offending vehicle is not insured with their company and so also the policy number. Respondent No.1 has not complied with the provisions under section 156 (6) of M.V.Act. It is learnt that, there is no valid registration certificate, permit and fitness to the vehicle. They do not admitt the health condition, age and avocation including earnings of the petitioner. The compensation claimed by her under different heads is highly excessive and arbitrary and she is not entitled to any interest. The interest claimed at 18% is highly excessive and contrary to Sec.3 of Interest Act 1978 and also to the observation made by Hon’ble Apex Court in various Judgments. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
5.Basing on the pleadings of both sides, the following issues were settled for trial.
6.Issue Nos.1 to 3:
1. Whether the petitioner/injured sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor bearing No.AP.24.UB.TR.6886?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?
7.On behalf of petitioner P.ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.C1 to
C17 got marked. On behalf of respondent ,R.ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 marked.
8.Heard arguments of both sides.
9.Issue No.1:
1. Whether the petitioner/injured sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor bearing No.AP.24.UB.TR.6886?
5 M.V.O.P.NO288 of 2015
10.It is the case of petitioner/P.w.1 that on 08.02.2014 at about 2.00
PM she and her husband Sri Janardhan Reddy were proceeding on their
Splendor Motorcycle bearing No.AP.24.AB.0283 from their native place
Parada to Narketpally and at about 3.45 PM when they reached near
Renuka Yellamma temple situated at Mada Yedavelly village the offending vehicle i.e., tractor bearing No.AP.24.UB.TR 6886 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came at high speed and dashed to their motorcycle in parallel direction due to which she and her husband fell down from the motorcycle and the rear wheel of the tractor ran over her both legs due to which she sustained fracture of right and left pelvic region, fracture of left femur shaft, fractured of 2nd,3rd,4th and 5th metacarpals, extensive degloving injury on left thigh crush injury, crush injury on left hand, diabetes mellitus and other injuries all over the body.
Immediately after the accident she was shifted to KIMS, Narketpally where she was given first aid and later she was shifted to Kamineni Hospital,
Hyderabad where she was admitted as inpatient vide I.D.No.201402453.
Her evidence further reveals that, the matter was reported to Narketpally police who registered the case in Cr.No.28/2014 for the offence under sections 337 and 338 of IPC against the driver of offending vehicle i.e., tractor.
11.During her evidence C.C of FIR in Cr.NO.28/2014 was marked as
Ex.C1. As per Ex.C1 the accident took place on 08.02.2014, whereas the complaint was lodged on 10.02.2014 i.e., two days after the accident. It is one of the contentions of the respondent No.2 counsel that, in view of delay of two days in lodging the complaint there is every chance of implanting the offending vehicle in the present case even though it was never involved in the accident. It is also contended by him that, respondent No.1 who is the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle and the claim petitioner i.e., P.w.1 belongs to same village and community, as such he might have helped P.w.1 in planting his tractor in this case.
Though the reason for the delay is not mentioned in column No.8 of the 6 M.V.O.P.NO288 of 2015
FIR, it is seen from Ex.C1 that, the husband of P.w.1 lodged complaint on 10.02.2014 as he too sustained injuries during the accident and his complaint clearly reveals that, as P.w.1 was in serious condition and as they were shifted to L.B Nagar Kamineni Hospital, they could not lodge the complaint immediately and thereby prayed to take action against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., tractor bearing No. AP.24.UB.TR 6886.
Merely because there is delay of two days in lodging the complaint it cannot be held that, the offending vehicle is implanted in the present case because the reason for the delay is properly explained by P.w.1 and it is also evident from record that on account of injuries sustained by P.w.1 and on account of her health condition after the accident the delay might have been occurred.
12.Even as per the decision relied upon by the petitioner counsel reported in 2011 ACJ 911 {Ravi v/s Badrinarayana and others} the division bench of Hon’ble Apex Court held that “It is well settled that, delay in lodging in FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant’s case.
Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after the accident.
Delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to deny justice to the victim. In cases of delay the courts are required to examine the evidence with closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR should be scrutinized more carefully. If the court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons, then even if there is delay in lodging the FIR the claim cannot be dismissed merely on that ground.” Thus from the above it can be held that, lodging of FIR as in Ex.C1 is prima-facie proof of accident.
13.As seen from the charge sheet averments i.e., Ex.C2 the police investigation reveals that, the alleged accident took place only on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver i.e., respondent
No.1 herein who is the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle and thereby he was charge sheeted for the offences under sections 337 and 7 M.V.O.P.NO288 of 2015 338 of IPC. P.w.1 in support of her case has also got examined
P.Raghunath Reddy who is cited as eyewitness in the charge sheet. Even his evidence reveals that, the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, due to which P.w.1 and her husband fell down from the vehicle and sustained injuries. During his cross-examination he deposed that, he was present at a distance of 70 yards from the scene by the time of accident and he also stated that, the motorcycle number of P.w.1 is AP.24.0283 and the number of Mahindra
Tractor i.e., offending vehicle is AP.24.UB.TR.6886 which is red in colour.
Though he deposed that, he was brought to the court by the husband of
P.w.1, during his entire cross-examination by Respondent No.2 counsel, no material facts were elicited to doubt his testimony including his alleged presence and witnessing the accident. Hence, the evidence of P.w.9 also establishes the fact that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle.
14.It is one of the contentions of respondent No.2 counsel that, as per the evidence of R.w.2 it is clear that the alleged crime vehicle was registered as temporary registration on 10.12.2013 and valid upto 08.01.2014 whereas the alleged accident took place on 08.02.2014 i.e., after lapse of temporary registration which is a clear violation of Sec.39 of
M.V.Act. But the charge sheet averments vide Ex.C2 do not reveal violation of any of the provisions of M.V.Act in the present case. The legal
Assistant Manager of Respondent No.2 company got examined himself as
R.w.1 in the present case. During his cross examination he admitted that, as per the charge sheet averments i.e., Ex.C2 the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., tractor was responsible for the accident. He further admitted that, no offence under M.V.Act is mentioned in the charge sheet against the owner of offending vehicle. R.w.1 also admitted that, in the FIR and charge sheet i.e., Exs.C1 and 2 the reason for delay in lodging of complaint was mentioned as ‘on account of treatment of the injured the delay occurred.’ He further admitted that, insurance policy is in force as on the date of accident in respect of the offending vehicle. Though it is 8 M.V.O.P.NO288 of 2015 contended by respondent No.2 counsel in his counter that, the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e., rider of motor cycle (on which
P.w.1 was proceeding) and so also its insurance company, the said contention is quite unsustainable because it is clearly evident from Ex.C2 i.e., final report filed by the police that, the driver of the offending vehicle alone is responsible for the accident and no contributory negligence is attributed to the husband of P.w.1 who was riding the motorcycle on the date of alleged accident. The evidence of P.w.1, 9 and R.w.1 coupled with
Ex.C1 and C2, clearly establishes the fact that, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., tractor was driven by its driver i.e., respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner resulting in sustaining of injury by P.w.1.
Accordingly issue No.1 is answered in favour of the claim petitioner/P.w.1 and as against the respondents.
15.Issue No.2:-
Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, If
so, to what amount and from whom?
16.From the evidence of R.w.1 it is apparent that, as per Ex.B1 the insurance of the offending vehicle i.e., tractor bearing NO.
AP.24.UB.TR.6886 is in force as on the date of accident. The rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle is proved through the investigation conducted by the police and it is also established from the oral and documentary evidence available on record that, the petitioner/P.w.1 sustained grievous injuries including multiple fractures and she is taking long treatment in view of the permanent disability suffered by her on account of the accident.
17.It is one of the main contentions of respondent No.2 counsel that, the offending vehicle was not registered as required under section 39 of
M.V.Act as such respondent No.1 violated the provisions of motor vehicle act and also the terms and conditions of the insurance policy which is the contract and thereby they are not liable to pa y the compensation in this case. In support of his contentions he has also got examined Sr.Asst of
Regional Transport Authority, Nalgonda as R.w.2 in the present case.
9 M.V.O.P.NO288 of 2015
From his evidence it is seen that, the temporary registration i.e.,
AP.24.UB.TR.6886 of the offending vehicle was valid from 10.12.2013 to 08.01.2014 and the permanent registration number i.e., AP.24.AY.3299 was allotted to the offending vehicle on 24.02.2014. According to R.w.2 the temporary registration given to any motor vehicle ,is valid only for a period one month. During his evidence his authorization letter dated 03.12.2020 is marked as Ex.B3 and attested copy of B-Register extract is marked as Ex.B4. No doubt as seen from Ex.B4 the permanent registration number was allotted to the offending vehicle on 24.02.2014 which is valid upto 23.02.2029.
18.It is evident from the record that, the alleged accident took place on 08.02.2014. According to Respondent No.2 counsel as the temporary registration of the offending vehicle was valid from 10.12.2013 to 08.01.2014, thus as on the date of accident i.e., on 08.02.2014 there is no valid registration of the offending vehicle as such they are not liable to pay compensation in this case. Even the evidence of R.w.2 reveals that, temporary registration is valid for a period of one month only and his evidence further reveals that, after the expiry of temporary registration and before obtaining regular registration number, the Inspector can seize the vehicle on the ground that, it is an unregistered vehicle. After seizing the vehicle their department will collect compounding fee from the individual and release the vehicle. He also deposed that, if there is a delay in obtaining regular registration number then their department will collect late fee. However his evidence clearly reveals that, as per Ex.B4, there is no mention about collection of late fee or compounding fee on the tractor i.e., offending vehicle involved in this case. Thus it is evident from record that, though the temporary registration of the offending vehicle got expired as on the date of alleged accident, the RTA officials did not collect any compounding fee or late fee from Respondent NO.1 at the time of allotting permanent registration number.
10 M.V.O.P.NO288 of 2015
19.Respondent No.2 company is not disputing that, the insurance policy vide Ex.B1 in respect of the offending vehicle is not in force as on the date of accident. But their main contention is with regard to the registration of the offending vehicle as on the date of alleged accident. No doubt in the present case the temporary registration of the offending vehicle got expired on 08.01.2014 and the permanent registration number was allotted on 24.2.2014 and in the meanwhile i.e., on 08.02.2014 the accident took place. Now the crucial point which is to be considered is whether the insurance company can escape from its liability by taking advantage of the fact that, the permanent registration was not obtained by Respondent No.1 for his vehicle as on the date of accident. To negate the said contention of respondent No.2 counsel the petitioner counsel has relied upon the Judgment of Kerala High Court reported in (2012 ACJ
848) {Joby Thomas and another v/s Annamma Augustine and another} in which similar point arose for consideration and his lordship in that case held that, “Though there was no valid registration for the vehicle as on the date of accident, the insurance company is not entitled to take defence of non registration of the vehicle on the date of accident because it is not one of the defences enumerated under section 149 of
M.V.Act.”
20.Undoubtedly Section 149 of M.V.Act deals with specific defences available to the insurance company under the act and non registration of motor vehicle is not one of the defences available to the insurance company. Then in such case the insurance company cannot contend that, due to non registration of the offending vehicle, their liability cannot be fastened. Thus in view of the above discussed facts coupled with the observation made in the above decision, this tribunal is of the opinion that, there is no breach of policy conditions and the insurance company cannot escape from its liability on account of non registration of the offending vehicle as on the date of accident. Therefore it is held that, respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer 11 M.V.O.P.NO288 of 2015 of the offending vehicle i.e., tractor are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
Heads:-
21.
22.Compensation for Loss of earnings:-
Under this head petitioner/P.w.1 claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/-.
According to petitioner/P.w.1, she is an agriculturist by profession and also a business lady. She was earning Rs.15,000/- per month .
A.P.Khadi village Industries Board, Nalgonda also granted loan of
Rs.15,00,000/- to develop her business vide Sanction letter dated 06.02.2014 with the consent of Canara Bank, Nalgonda but due to accident she could not avail the loan and thereby lost great opportunity in her life. During her evidence the sanction letter issued by Khadi Board dated 06.02.2014 is marked as Ex.C13 as per which
P.w.1 submitted application for sanction of margin money with project cost of Rs.15,00,000/-. Undoubtedly on account of the accident which took place on 08.02.2014, P.w.1 could not carry her project work even though her application was considered by the Board. She has also filed
Ex.C14 i.e., Agriculture income certificate dated 22.07.2016 issued by
Thasildhar, Kattangur Mandal as per which P.w.1 is cultivating Gherkin garden in Ac.3-00 gts and during the year 2015-2016 her agricultural income was Rs.8,00,000/- on the crop raised in her land. From the evidence of P.w.1 coupled with the evidence of P.w’s.2 to 8 it is seen that, on account of the alleged accident P.w.1 is suffering from physical disability due to squeal of injury to left lower limb with ankle loss left knee joint and injury to right lower limb with foot drop and sequel of injury left hand with loss of grip and as per Ex.C7 (disability certificate) she is suffering with 60% disability.
23.As the accident took place in the year 2014 the question of cultivating the land by P.w.1 personally during the period 2015-2016 by raising Gherkin garden does not arise and probably she might have 12 M.V.O.P.NO288 of 2015 given it on lease to some others and even at present she can give her agricultural land on lease. Hence, on account of the accident there is no loss of agricultural income to P.w.1 in respect of her alleged land and moreover as Ex.C14 pertains to the year 2016 which is post suit document, this court is not inclined to act upon it for consideration of the income said to have been earned by P.w.1 from agriculture.
24.In the present case since the date of accident in the year 2014
P.w.1 was completely bed ridden and she underwent many operations, surgeries and even at present i.e., in the year 2021 when she came to the Court she was walking with walking stand and from the injuries shown by her, she is unable to attend her personal work on her own (like a normal person) on account of the permanent disability suffered by her. P.w.1 has also got examined P.w.10 who is the owner of residential plot No.403, Vinayaka Heavens, Telephone Colony,
Kothapet, Hyderabad and his evidence reveals that during her treatment ,P.w.1 resided in their house as tenant by paying rent of
Rs.10,000/- per month and Ex.C12 is the rental agreement executed in between them to that affect. As per Ex.C12 the tenancy commenced on 01.03.2014 and valid upto 28.02.2018. During his cross- examination P.w.10 deposed that, he has not issued any receipt towards the amount received by him as rents. Though he deposed that, the rent was Rs.10,000/- per month there is no documentary evidence to prove the payments of rent by P.w.1 to P.w.10 under
Ex.C12. Hence, this tribunal is not inclined to act upon the same.
25.Under Ex.C13 it is seen that, P.w.1 was sanctioned loan for her alleged business but there is no documentary evidence on record to show the exact earnings made by her prior to the date of accident.
However by considering the nature of injuries suffered by her including the period in which she was bed ridden, it would be just to grant an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of her earnings as prayed for.
13 M.V.O.P.NO288 of 2015
26.Medical expenses:- this head petitioner/P.w.1 claimed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-
According to her, immediately after the accident she was shifted to
Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally and after giving first Aid she was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad for further treatment. She was treated as inpatient in that hospital and was discharged on 19.03.2014. According to her, she has spent an amount of
Rs.30,00,000/- towards her treatment at Kamineni and at other hospitals. Ex.C3 is the medical certificate issued by the Kamineni
Hospital, Hyderabad dated 08.02.2014 as per which, she sustained crush injuries of her left hand exposing underline musicale crush injury over left inguinal region exposing substanteous feet, which are grievous in nature. In support of her case P.w.1 has also filed Exs.C4 to
C7 which are the discharge cards issued by Kamineni Hospital,
Hyderabad dated 08.02.2014, 10.09.2014 and 24.10.2014. Ex.C8 is the
Bunch of Medical bills and prescriptions issued by Kamineni Hospital,
Hyderabad. Under Ex.C8, P.w.1 is claiming an amount of Rs.9,66,869/-.
27.To substantiate her case P.w.1 has also examined P.w.4 whose evidence reveals that on 09.02.2014 P.w.1 underwent plastic surgery to her left thigh debridement and skin graft harvested. His evidence shows that, three procedures were done on P.w.1 and she was admitted and discharged for three times by advising follow up treatment. According to him, Ex.C5 is the discharge summary dated 16.09.2014 and Ex.C6 is the discharge card dated 24.10.2014 and discharge bills were issued by Kamineni Hospital, L.B.Nagar. During the cross examination of P.w.4 nothing was elicited by the respondent No.2 counsel to show that, Ex.C5 and C6 are fabricated documents.
28.The evidence of P.w.5 another medical officer reveals that, he was part of the team of doctors of Orthopedic surgeon, Plastic Surgeon 14 M.V.O.P.NO288 of 2015 and gynecology and they have done transverse colostomy to P.w.1 on 28.02.2014 and another surgery close to the colostomy on 03.02.2017 and Ex.C8 is the hospital bill for the said procedure at Rs.1,11,850/-.
Ex.C17 is the discharge summary issued by their hospital. During his cross examination he deposed that, he is not concerned with billing process and cannot comment on the mentioned bill amount. Thus from his evidence it is apparent that, under Ex.C8, P.w.1 has incurred
Rs.1,11,850/- for her alleged surgeries. She has also got examined
RMO of Kamineni Hospital, L.B.Nagar as P.w.6 whose evidence reveals that Ex.C3 (medical certificate) coupled with Exs.C4 to C6 and Ex.C8 were issued from their hospital. During his cross examination though he admitted that, he has not treated P.w.1 at any time, from his evidence it is proved by P.w.1 that, Ex.C3 to C8 were issued by
Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad for her treatment on the mentioned dates. Exs.C3 to C6 reveals aboutthe medicines prescribed and the treatment given to P.w.1 by Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad and the medical bills vide Ex.C8 reveals that, P.w.1 has purchased the medicines. P.w.5 had admitted Ex.C8 (bill) for Rs.1,11,850/- only.
Whereas P.w.1 calculated the medical bills under Ex.C8 for
Rs.9,66,869/-. Though the medical officers of Kamineni Hospital,
Hyderabad did not speak about the amounts mentioned in other medical bills produced by P.w.1, it is apparent from the record that, the said medical bills contains the name of P.w.1 and she has undergone several surgeries and was admitted in hospital on three occasions as such the medical expenses of P.w.1 in Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad on the whole is considered as Rs.3,00,000/- .
29.The evidence of P.w.1 further reveals that, she was also admitted in Balaji Hospital, L.B.Nagar during the course of her treatment and the evidence of P.w.7 also reveals that, P.w.1 underwent surgery for vaginal hysterectomy with pelvic floor repair and Ex.C9 is the cash bill 15 M.V.O.P.NO288 of 2015 of Rs.50,000/- issued from their hospital. During her cross examination
P.w.7 admitted that, surgery was done by Dr.Srinivas Reddy, General
Surgeon. According to her, she has assisted the above doctor and further deposed that, Ex.C9 and C10 pertains to their hospital. During her cross examination nothing was elicited by respondent No.2 counsel to prove that, they are fabricated documents. Though the petitioner counsel claimed an amount of Rs.1,71,000/- under Ex.C9 the evidence of P.w.7 reveals that, they have issued cash bill for Rs.50,000/- only.
30.The evidence of P.w.1 further reveals that, she has also taken physiotherapy treatment for her recovery. The evidence of P.w.2 reveals that, P.w.1 consulted her in the month of August 2014 and she has rendered her services to P.w.1 till December 2016 by giving physiotherapy treatment and she used to charge Rs.1,500/- per day and received an amount of Rs.13,05, 000/- from the patient Ex.C7 is bunch of Physiotherapy bills for the said amount. During her cross examination P.w.2 admitted that, she has issued Ex.C11 on her letter pads as she has received the amounts under cash. According to her, initially when she visited P.w.1 her condition was totally on bed and unable to move but later i.e., in the year 2016 her condition got slightly recovered. Though she admitted that, free treatment is available by physiotherapist at Osmania and Gandhi Hospital,
Hyderabad the same does not mean that, P.w.1 cannot claim an amount for her physiotherapy treatment and it is not her case that, she took treatment in the above government hospitals. Hence, if the amounts incurred by P.w.1 in Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad and Balaji
Hospital, Hyderabad are clubbed i.e., Rs.3,00,000/- (granted) +Rs.50,000/-, it comes to Rs.3,50,000/-.Under Ex.C11 the medical bill is for Rs.13,05,000/- and if the same is added to Rs.3,50,000/- then it comes to Rs.16,55,000/-. As the amount claimed by P.w.1 is only 16 M.V.O.P.NO288 of 2015
Rs.15,00,000/- under this head, this tribunal is of the opinion that, it would be just to grant Rs.15,00,000/- to P.w.1 under this head.
31.Extra Nourishment:-
Under this head, petitioner/P.w.1 claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Undoubtedly on account of the alleged accident P,.w.1 not only suffered grievous injuries including crush injuries and she has underwent surgeries including plastic surgery and was bed ridden for a couple of years and in that course definitely she might have incurred some amounts for extra nourishment, as such it would be just to grant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under this head.
32.Personal attendant charges:-
Under this head petitioner/P.w.1 claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/-
According to P.w.1, during her treatment in the hospitals she has availed the services of a lady i.e., personal attendant from Siri Old Age home by paying Rs.10,000/- per month. In support of her case she has also filed Ex.C15 as per which she has claimed Rs.2,50,333/-. As P.w.1 did not choose to mention the name of the lady whom she has engaged and also failed to examine the person who issued the cash receipts relied upon by her this tribunal is of the opinion that, after discharge from the hospital P.w.1 would have definitely availed services of lady attendant because even as per the evidence of P.w.2 (medical officer) the condition of P.w.1 was worst and bed ridden immediately after the accident. As such for attending upon her basic needs P.w.1 might have spent some amounts therefore it would be just to grant an amount of Rs.50,000/- claimed by her towards personal attendant charges. Hence, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is granted under this head.
33.Compensation for pain and suffering, loss of expectation of life and amenities:- 17 M.V.O.P.NO288 of 2015
Under this head petitioner/P.w.1 claimed an amount of
Rs.3,00,000/-. Undoubtedly on account of the grievous injuries suffered by her and on account of her surgeries and treatment with various doctors in several hospitals, P.w.1 might have suffered extreme pain and the same would continue in her future life also in view of the disability suffered by her. Hence, it would be just to grant an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- under this head.
34.Compensation for continuing permanent disability:-
Under this head petitioner/P.w.1 claimed an amount of
Rs.30,00,000/-. According to P.w.1, on account of the accident she has sustained several grievous injuries and also underwent several surgeries and at present she is suffering with permanent disability. In support of her case, she has also examined Dr.I.Kameshar (member of
Medical Board, Nalgonda), who has issued Ex.C7 (disability certificate) on 09.03.2017 stating that, she is suffering with 60% disability due to sequel of injury to left lower limb with ankle loss, left knee joint and injury to right lower limb with food drop and sequel of injury left hand with loss of grip. During his cross examination P.w.8 admitted that, the petitioner/P.w.1 underwent physiotherapy process for several months for recovery. His evidence shows that, even the physiotherapy treatments will not improve her movements in future.
35.The Hon'ble Apex Court in various Judgments recognized the contribution made by wife to the house as invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money because of the gratuitous services rendered by her with true love and affection to the husband and children and managing the house hold affairs which cannot be equated with the services rendered by house keeper or maid servant. In this case P.w.1 on account of her disability would no longer render her services to the utmost possible extent to her family members 18 M.V.O.P.NO288 of 2015 physically and moreover she has to depend upon her family members or attendants to do her personal activities and the same constitutes pain for P.w.1 for her total remaining life time and definitely such pain cannot be computed in monetary terms. As per the decision of Hon’ble
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 2011 (3) LS 91 {Mohammed
Nizamuddin v/s Satyanarayana and another} his lordship by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in {Latha Wadhwa and others v/s State of Bihar and others 2 (2001) 8 SCC 197} considered the monthly income of the house wife at Rs.3,000/- even on modest estimation for rendering multifarious services by her for managing the entire family. Thus in the absence any documentary evidence on record to prove the avocation of P.w.1 as an employee prior to the date of accident, she is treated as home maker and thereby her monthly income is considered as Rs.3,000/- per month.
36.Petitioner/P.w.1 is aged 43 years as on the date of accident as such the relevant multiplier applicable to her is ‘14’. If her loss of earnings is calculated as per para No.21 of Sarala Varma Judgment
i.e., 2009 ACJ 1298 {Sarala Varma and others v/s Delhi
Transport Corporation and another} the calculation for loss of earnings for 60% disability on the whole would be 3,000X12X14X60%=3,02,400-00. Hence, an amount of Rs.3,02,400- 00 is granted under this head.
37.The compensation awarded to the petitioner/P.w.1 under various heads are as follows:-
Sl.No Head Amount
.
1.Compensation for Loss of earningsRs. 50,000-00
2.Medical expensesRs.15,00,000-00
3.Extra NourishmentRs. 1,00,000-00
4.Personal attendant chargesRs. 50,000-00
5.Compensation for pain and suffering,Rs. 1,00,000-00 loss of expectation of life and amenities
6.Compensation for continuing Rs. 3,02,400-00 19 M.V.O.P.NO288 of 2015 permanent disability
Total:- Rs.21,02,400-00
38.Thus the petitioner is entitled for Rs.21,02,400-00 (Rupees
Twenty One Lakhs Two Thousand Four hundred only) towards compensation under the above heads. Therefore it is held that the petitioner/claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.21,02,400-00 (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Two Thousand Four hundred only) from respondents.
39.Interest:-
The Hon'ble Apex Court (three judges bench) in 2018 ACJ 740
{Munuswamy and others v/s Managing Director, Tamil Nadu
State corporation Ltd.,), granted interest at 9% on the awarded amount. Hence, by relying upon the above Judgment and by taking into consideration the facts on record coupled with the disability suffered by P.w.1, this tribunal is of the opinion that this is a fit case in which it would be just to grant interest @ 9% P.A from the date of petition to till date of deposit.
40.Issue No.3
To what relief?
In the result this petition is allowed in part by awarding compensation of Rs.21,02,400-00 (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Two
Thousand Four hundred only) with costs and interest @ 9% P.A from the date of filing of the petition to till the date of deposit. Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. They are directed to deposit the said amount within 45 days from the date of this order and on such deposit the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 22nd day of January, 2021.
20 M.V.O.P.NO288 of 2015
Special Sessions Judge Fast Tracking Cases Relating to Atrocities Against Women, Nalgonda FAC:IV Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioner side: For respondents side:
P.w.1: Putta LaxmiR.w.1: Anand Kiran Vellanki P.w.2: S.NavithaR.w.2: G.Ramachandraiah P.w.3: Dr.Roshan Jaiswal P.w.4: Dr.T.Venkateshwarlu P.w.5: Dr.Y.Srinivas P.w.6: Dr.L.Vikram P.w.7: Dr.K.Sandhya P.w.8: Dr.I.Kameshwar P.w.9: P.Raghunadha Reddy P.w.10:G.Venkat Ram Reddy
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
Ex.C1: C.C of First Information Report in Cr.No.28/2014 of P.S.Narketpally Ex.C2: C.C of charge sheet in C.C No.36 of 2014 on the file of 2nd Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda
Ex.C3: Medical Certificate issued by Kamineni Hospital, L.B.Nagar Hyderabad. Ex.C4: Discharge card issued by Kamineni Hospital, L.B.Nagar Hyderabad,
dated 08.02.2014.
Ex.C5: Discharge card issued by Kamineni Hospital, L.B.Nagar Hyderabad,
dated 10.09.2014.
Ex.C6: Discharge card issued by Kamineni Hospital, L.B.Nagar Hyderabad,
dated 24.10.2014.
Ex.C7: Disability certificate issued by District Medical Board, Nalgonda. Ex.C8: Bunch of medical bills and prescriptions issued by Kamineni Hospital, L.B.Nagar Hyderabad Ex.C9: Bunch of medical bills and prescriptions issued by Sai Balaji Hospital, Nagole, Hyderabad. Ex.C10: Discharge certificate issued by Sri Balaji Hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.C11: Phsiotherapy bill issued by Dr.Navitha.S Ex.C12: Rental agreement dated 01.03.2014. Ex.C13: Sanction letter No.AP NLG/APKVIB/PMEGP/MMS consent letter dated 06.02.2014. Ex.C14: Copy of agriculture income certificate issued by Thasildar, Kattangur (Subject to objection made by the counsel for respondent No.2). Ex.C15: Attendant bill issued by Sri Old Age Home, Hyderabad. Ex.C16: Bunch of X-ray films belongs to the patient. Ex.C17: Discharge summary issued by Kamineni Hospital, L.B.Nagar Hyderabad.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
Ex.B1: Insurance policy copy valid from 20.12.2013 to 19.12.2014 21 M.V.O.P.NO288 of 2015
Ex.B2: Copy of temporary R.C for the vehicle bearing No.AP.24.UB.TR.6886 Ex.B3:Authorization letter dated 03.12.2020 Ex.B4: Attested copy of B-Register abstract
Special Sessions Judge Fast Tracking Cases Relating to Atrocities Against Women, Nalgonda FAC:IV Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda