Partly allowed

Sampangi Rama Krishna v. B. Shankar Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Feb 2020MACMA/2199/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed by claimant assailing MVOP award for insufficient compensation. High Court found lower court failed to grant compensation for future medical expenses despite evidence of required surgery and breathing difficulties. Appeal allowed in part, enhancing compensation.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by addition of Rs. 25,000 for future medical expenditure (calculated as 50% of Rs. 50,000 due to claimant's contributory negligence), resulting in total compensation of Rs. 53,25

Sampangi Rama Krishna Vs B. Shankar Reddy — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI M.A.C.M.A.No.2199 OF 2013

¶2

JUDGMENT :

¶3

The claimant in M.V.O.P.No.341 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Kurnool at Nandyal has come before this Court assailing the award passed in the aforementioned M.V.O.P.

¶4

The grounds urged by the claimant to assail the award impugned in precise are as under:

¶5

i) That the compensation amount of Rs.28,250/- awarded to him is meager and low and that the award passed by the Court below is contrary to law and probabilities of the case.

¶6

ii) The Court below without looking into the evidence on record granted meager compensation amount, though, the record reveals that he sustained multiple injuries.

¶7

iii) The award passed by the trial Court is unjustified and that the amount granted to him towards medical expenditure is very low.

¶8

iv) The finding of the Court below that there is negligence on the part of the claimant also is against the evidence on record. As a matter of fact, the evidence of claimant and Exs.A.1 and A.3 clinchingly establish negligence on the part of car driver, due to which the accident took place.

¶9

v) It is clearly recited in Exs.A.2 and A.5 that the appellant has received a grievous injury due to loss of skin at the tip of nose, due to which he has got the difficulty in breathing

¶10

¶11

and these facts are not weighed or evaluated by the Court below while passing the award impugned.

¶12

vi) The amount awarded by the Court below under the head of pain and suffering is also very meager and low.

¶13

vii) The traumatic condition of appellant has not been appreciated by the Court below; The wound certificate indicates that there is loss of skin on the tip of nose etc.

¶14

These being impugned grounds urged by the claimant to assail the award impugned, the question which needs to be answered by this Court is “whether the award passed by the Court below is sustainable under law, or whether it needs any modification”?

¶15

Perused the order impugned. I have gone through the documents produced by the claimant and also the oral evidence adduced by him.

¶16

The case of the appellant in brief is that on 30.01.2019, while he was proceeding on a scooter bearing No.AP 21 A 2356 from Sanjeevnagar to Saraswathinagar at about 2.00 PM, when he reached near Padmavathi Nagar junction, a car bearing No.AP 21 K 8671 came towards his scooter in a rash and negligent manner and dashed it, as a result of it, he fell down from the scooter and received multiple injuries. The driver-cum-owner of the car has not contested the case filed by the appellant. It is only the 2^nd respondent with whom the car bearing No. AP 21 K 8671 is insured has contested the case.

¶17

It was elicited by the 2^nd respondent in the cross-examination of PW.1 that the accident took place near a four road junction where the movements of the vehicles would be slow. The claimant though denied the suggestion given to him as regards to non possessing of license by

¶18

¶19

him to drive a scooter, he did not choose to produce his driving license. The 2^nd respondent examined R.W.2 and produced Ex.X.3 certificate issued by RTA, Nandhyal. By producing Ex.X.3 certificate, the 2^nd respondent could prove that the claimant who was driving the scooter, was not holding any type of driving license. It was noticed on perusal of Ex.A.3-charge sheet by the trial Court that both the vehicles involved in the accident were damaged partly.

¶20

Looking into the evidence of claimant who deposed that the accident occurred near four road junction where the movement of the vehicles was very slow, and on consideration of the evidence brought on record through R.W.2 wherefrom it was clear that the claimant had no license to drive the scooter and also other factual circumstances brought on record, the Court below rightly held that the claimant also contributed for occurrence of the accident. Accordingly apportioned the negligence on the part of the claimant and on the part of car driver in the ratio of 50-50 percent. The aforementioned finding of the Court below was based on the evidence on record. Therefore, the same cannot be faulted.

¶21

Coming to the other aspects claimed by the claimant in the appeal grounds which are relating to the quantification of compensation are concerned, the trial Court looking into the contents of Ex.A.2-wound certificate, wherefrom it is clear that the claimant received injuries on face exposing nasal bone from the tip of the nose to right eye, has granted compensation of Rs.15,000/- as the said injury is grievous in nature. As the other injuries received by the claimant are simple, has granted Rs.1,500/- for each injury.

¶22

¶23

It is evident from the material on record, that the claimant took treatment as inpatient under the care and supervision of PW.2 for a period of nine (09) days and that he paid Rs.11,000/- to the hospital authorities. Considering the other material on record namely Exs.A.6 and A.7 – bunch of medical prescriptions and bills, the Court below thought that it is just to award compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head of medical expenditure.

¶24

On appreciation of the evidence on record, wherefrom, it was clear that the claimant received grievous injury to nose, the Court below appeared to have awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. Though this Court did not find any flaw in the award impugned, in so far as granting of compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner in respect of grievous injury received by him, and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/under the head of medical expenditure, Rs.1,500/- in respect of a simple injury, this Court noticed an error in the award impugned in so far as non-granting of compensation to the claimant under the head of future medical expenditure though the evidence was placed on record particularly from the evidence of PW.2, who deposed in clear terms that the claimant requires another surgery, as he is unable to breath properly and to cure that defect he has to incur a sum of Rs.50,000/-.

¶25

It has been deposed in clear terms by PW.2 that the claimant may incur Rs.50,000/- to undergo another surgery to nose as he is unable to breath properly.

¶26

Having regard to the evidence given by PW.2 emphasizing the need of undergoing of another surgery by the claimant for the nose to which an injury is received by the claimant in the aforementioned

¶27

¶28

accident, this Court feels that it is appropriate to grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head of future medical expenditure. This is the only area where the award impugned has been interfered with by this Court without touching the other aspects mentioned in the award.

¶29

In the light of the above, the award impugned is modified to the extent indicated above i.e. in so far as granting of compensation to the claimant under the head of future medical expenditure.

¶30

In the light of the finding of the Court below which is approved by this Court that the petitioner who has contributed for occurrence of the accident, he gets 50% of Rs.50,000/- which is granted now and it comes to Rs.25,000/-.

¶31

The claimant thus gets compensation of Rs.53,250/- instead of Rs.28,250/- that has been awarded by the Court below.

¶32

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation of Rs.53,250/-. No order as to costs.

¶33

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

¶34

________________ J. UMA DEVI, J

¶35

Date.18.02.2020 KA

¶36

¶37

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶38

M.A.C.M.A.No.2199 OF 2013

¶39

Date:18.02.2019

¶40

Sampangi Rama Krishna v. B. Shankar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sampangi Rama Krishna v. B. Shankar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R Samrendra Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Surampudi Sunitha at Polavarapu Hemalatha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Velama Venkatanarasimha Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Namburi Mohan Rao at Mohan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bathini Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Panam Vijay Kumar at Vijay, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh