Dismissed

Singirisetty Sirish Kumar v. P.Thirupathaiah and 3 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Oct 2019MACMA/1685/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant sought enhancement of compensation awarded in a Motor Vehicles Act case. The High Court found no errors in the Tribunal's award as the appellant failed to substantiate higher claims with valid evidence.

What did the court decide?

MAC MA dismissed; no costs awarded.

What the court decided

Singirisetty Sirish Kumar Vs P.Thirupathaiah… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

M.A.C.M.A. No.1685 of 2005

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The appellant is the injured claimant filed this appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Award and Decree dated 20.01.2005 passed in M.V.O.P.No.126 of 2001 by the M.A.C.T-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, granting compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident occurred on 30.12.2000. This appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation under various heads.

¶5

The appellant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.3,11,500/- along with interest 12% per annum against the respondents for the injuries received by him in the Motor Vehicle accident which occurred on 30.12.2000. The appellant filed a claim petition stating that, on 30.12.2000, when he was traveling in the lorry bearing No. AP 02 U 1139 along with incense stick packets load, the accident occurred at about 11.30 a.m, when the mini lorry bearing No. AP 21 U 6161 dashed the lorry, in the accident he lost incense stickes worth Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1,500/-cash and he took treatment for 21 days in the hospital, for which he spent

¶6

¶7

Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses and he used to earn Rs. 6,500/- per month.

¶8

The respondent Nos.2 and 4 filed their written statement denying the averments of the claim petition. The respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained exparte.

¶9

Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:

¶10

Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle lorry bearing No.AP-02-U-1139 and another mini lorry bearing No.AP-21-U-6161 involved in the accident and whether it resulted in injuries to the petitioner ?

¶11

Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, and if so, payable by whom ? and to what extent ?

¶12

To what relief ?

¶13

During the trial, the appellant himself was examined as P.W.1 and also got examined P.Ws.2 and 3 on his behalf and marked Exs.A1 to A169 and Exs.X1 to X5. On behalf of respondents, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.B1 and B2 insurance policies.

¶14

The tribunal based on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, coupled with documentary evidence of Exs.A1 and A3 certified copy of FIR and Charge Sheet in Crime No.60 of 2000 respectively came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver

¶15

¶16

of the first offending vehicle bearing No. AP 02 U 1139, in the absence of contrary evidence the same could not be found fault.

¶17

With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.2 Doctor, who stated that the appellant received one grievous injury of fracture over his lower end of tibia on right leg and one simple lacerated injury in the lower lip 4 x 5 cm, on account of the accident, and Ex.A69 discharge summary issued by the Hosmat Hospital, which shows that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital as inpatient on 31.12.2000 took treatment for the fracture caused to his right leg and he was discharged after treatment on 20.01.2001. The P.W.2 is Orthopedic Doctor in Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore who treated the appellant has deposed about the nature of the fracture caused to his right leg and injury caused to his lower jaw, taking of X-rays, rendering of treatment, conducting of operation to him and he was discharge from the hospital. Considering the nature of injuries, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.12,500/for grievous injury, Rs.1,000/for simple injury, Rs.50,000/- for medical and transportation expenses and extra nourishment and Rs.36,500/- for pain and suffering making a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted total compensation of

¶18

¶19

Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 04.08.2001 till the date of realization and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable for payment of compensation, but the Tribunal directed the 2^nd respondent to deposit the decreed amount in the Court within two months from the date of date of Judgment with a liberty to recover the same from the 1^st respondent by way of filing execution petition. The appellant was permitted to withdraw Rs.50,000/- and the balance amount is ordered to be kept under fixed deposit in any Nationalised Bank for a period of two years.

¶20

Sri S.S.Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against the claim of Rs.3,11,500/- for the grievous injuries sustained which are permanent in nature. The Tribunal ought to have granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed by the appellant for transportation and extra nourishment instead of granting Rs.50,000/-. The appellant had spent Rs.80,000/- as inpatient in the hospital for a period of 21 days and got marked Exs.A4 to A68 medical bills in support of his claim, but the Tribunal has not taken the medical bills into consideration and not granted any amount towards medical expenses. The Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellant for grant of expenses incurred in the

¶21

¶22

hospital towards canteen bills and also tax receipts and bus tickets. The rejection of claim is illegal.

¶23

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent insurance company made his submissions to sustain the award passed by the Tribunal and stated that after considering all the issues based on the evidence, the Tribunal rightly granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum. The appellant failed to show any valid grounds to enhance the compensation amounts. He further contended that the appellant failed to adduce any evidence by examining the persons, who issued Exs.A4 to A68 and A70 to A87. In the absence of any evidence in support of all these receipts and bills, the same could not be considered for granting compensation. The evidence of P.W.2 Doctor, who was examined as a witness for the appellant has not deposed about the amount spent by the appellant towards treatment in the hospital. In the absence of supporting evidence, the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim towards medical expenses. 10. This Court having considered the rival contentions of the appellant and respondents perused Ex.A1 copy of FIR and Ex.A3 charge sheet and also Ex.A69 discharge summary. In the accident, the appellant received grievous injuries fracture to right tibia – fibula and operation was conducted, by interlocking nailing for fracture right tibia on 01.01.2001 and

¶24

¶25

ORIF for fracture mandible and closed reduction with percutaneous K wire fixation. On 04.01.2001, he was discharged. The P.W.2 the Doctor has not stated anything about the medical expenses incurred for performing the operation and percentage of disability suffered by the appellant. The Tribunal rightly granted Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses, extra nourishment and transportation charges.

¶26

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considerable submission of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the counsel for the appellant failed to persuade this court with reference to the evidence on record to grant higher compensation, over and above the compensation granted by the Tribunal. This Court found that the Tribunal granted just compensation under various heads for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the motor vehicle accident.

¶27

In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, the MACMA is dismissed. No costs.

¶28

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶29

__________________ M.GANGA RAO, J

¶30

15.10.2019 Sdp/kk

¶31

¶32

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶33

M.A.C.M.A. No.1685 of 2005

¶34

15.10.2019

¶35

sdp

Singirisetty Sirish Kumar v. P.Thirupathaiah and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Singirisetty Sirish Kumar v. P.Thirupathaiah and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N. Anantha Reddy Vs T. Narmada and 3 Others

Ravela Chittibabu Vs Ravela Leela Rani

Sri Ranga Swamy Vs Sri Eswarappa [Since Deceased]

Shaik Rasool Vs Shaik Iqbal Basha

Nimmaka Shankar Rao, Vs District Collector

M/S. New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Adenna and 2 Ors.