Partly allowed

Shaik Rajiya, Guntur Dist v. Ramesh Anki Reddy, Guntur District and Anr.

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Feb 2024MACMA/1754/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu allowed an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal order. The Court enhanced compensation from Rs.17,000 to Rs.54,000, recognizing the appellant held a fracture to her polio-affected leg as grievous injury warranting higher damages for pain, suffering, and extra nourishment.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.17,000 to Rs.54,000; Respondents directed to pay jointly and severally; Deposit of balance Rs.37,000 within one month.

Shaik Rajiya, Guntur Dist Vs Ramesh Anki Reddy… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

¶5

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 1754 OF 2016

¶6

Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act, 1988 against the^Order and decree made in M.V. O.P. No. 154 of 2013 Dated 28-8-2014 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District

¶7

Between:

¶8

Shaik Rajiya, W/o Hanief Musli Aged about 42 years. Coolie, R/o 6 th lane. Srinagar, Guntur, JCJC, Guntur District.

¶9

...Appellant/Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

Ramesh Anki Reddy, S/o Seshadri C/o Divya Car travels. Main Road, Chilakalurlpet, JCJC, Guntur District. (Owner of Car bearing No AP-07-AM9786)

¶12

The National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Arundelpet, Guntur, Guntur District. Insurer of TATA INDIGO Car NO.AP-07-AM-9786 With Policy No.551702/31/11/6100002010 Valid from 20-10-2011 to 29-08-2012

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Counsel for the Appellants : SRI. CVS MEHAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P. SURI BABU

¶15

The Court made the following Judgment:

¶16

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

¶17

I.A.No.3 of 2016/M.A.C.M.A.M.P.NO.2387 of 2016 IN/AND

¶18

M.A.C.M.A. No.1754 OF 2016

¶19

JUDGMENT:-

¶20

This M.A.C.M.A is directed against the order dated 28.08.2014, by the claimant, in M.V.O.P.No.l54 of 2013, where under, the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Guntur, ("Tribunal" for short), as against the claim of the petitioner to award the compensation^of Rs.2,00,000/with regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 07.05.2012, awarded a sum of Rs. 17,000/directing that the respondent Nos.l and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and that the 2"^ respondent shall deposit^the amount within a period of two (2) months and after deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount immediately. 2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the petitioner in the M.V.O.P.No.l54 of²⁰¹³ according to the petition averments, in brief, is that:

¶21

¶22

(i) The petitioner is the resident of Srinagar, Guntur. She is doing coolie work and used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month. She is suffering from polio to her right leg and she is a handicapped. On 07,05.2012, she along with her brother-in-law and her son went to Kothapet for the purpose of pledging T.V., for her family necessities and after returning by walk when they reached near Mahalakshmamma Temple, Kothapet, at about 4.15 pm a car bearing No.AP-07-AM-9786 (hereinafter will be referred to as "offending vehicle") which was coming from their back side driven by its driver i n a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, hit the petitioner and she fell down on the road and the car ran over her right leg. Therefore, she received a fracture injury to her right leg. Immediately, she was admitted in Government General Hospital, Guntur and after first aid, she was discharged on the same day. On the next day i.e., on 08.05.2012, she was admitted in Government General Hospital, Guntur. The doctors treated fracture of right leg and discharged her on 09.05.2012 and the doctors advised her to take treatment as outpatient.

¶23

ii) The petitioner gave a report to Kothapet Police Station on 09.05.2012 and Kothapet Police registered it as a case in Cr.No.222/2012 against the driver of the offending vehicle under Section 337 IPC. The petitioner is aged about 40

¶24

¶25

years and she was hale and healthy. She is suffering^withpain due to the accident. The disability caused to the petitioner is permanent. The 1 respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and the 2 nd respondent is the insurer. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, the claim petition, 4. The 1 respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. 5. The 2^^ respondent filed a counter resisting the^claim of the petitioner and the contention in substance is that^thedriver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective^{drivinglicense} and the insured had committed the breach of terms of^insurance policy. The injuries received by the petitioner are simple in nature. The petitioner is put to strict proof of the^allegations mentioned in the petition, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled

¶27

the following issues for trial:

¶28

(1) Whether the petitioner sustained simple injuries^only and so, the compensation claimed is excessive?

¶29

(2) Whether the driver of respondent vehicle has no valid and effective driving license?

¶30

(3) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation as prayed for?

¶31

¶32

(4) To what relief?

¶33

During the course of trial before the Tribunal, on^behalfof the petitioner, PWl and PW2 were examined and Exs.Al to A5 were marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the contesting respondent No.2.

¶34

The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering^the oral as well as documentary evidence, made findings^thatthe1 St respondent has valid driving license and that the petitioner by virtue of the evidence proved the rash and negligent act against the respondent and the evidence of the petitioner remained unrebutted and that the petitioner sustained only the simple injury and that she did not prove any disability. The^Tribunal arrived at the compensation payable by the respondents^under different heads as that of Rs. 17,000/- as against^the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. While holding so, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 17,000/- as above.

¶35

Felt aggrieved that the compensation so awarded by^the Tribunal is not just and reasonable, the petitioner filed the present Appeal.

¶36

As against the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent act of the 1^^ respondent in driving the offending vehicle and that the 1®^ respondent had

¶37

¶38

a valid driving license, no cross objections are filed by the contesting respondents.

¶39

Hence, the scope of Appeal is limited as to whether^the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. as to

¶40

The simple question that falls for consideration is whether the award, dated 28.08.2014, on the file of Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Guntur, is sustainable under law and facts, insofar^asgranting compensation of Rs. 17,000/is concerned, as against the original claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. 13. P.W.l before the Tribunal was no other than the petitioner, who put forth the facts in tune with the^pleadingsof his claim petition. Through her examination Exs.Al^toA5were marked. Ex.Al was the certified copy of FIR, Ex.A2^wasthe certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A3 was the certified^copyof wound certificates, Ex.A4 was the X-ray films and Ex.AS^wasthe Photostat copy of policy. The petitioner further examined^PW2- the Medical Officer, who examined the injured and issued^wound certificate. According to the evidence of PW2, he found a swelling in size 2X4 cm on right leg. The X-ray of^ankleofright leg reveals fracture of right tibia. The injuries are^grievous in nature.

¶41

¶42

As evident from the judgment of the Tribunal, it reveals marked through PWl. All are that only Exs.Al to A5 were certified copies. I.A.No.3 of of the claimant insofar as 15. The case that she could not file 2016/M.A.C.M.A.M.P.NO.2387 of 2016 is issued by the competent authority the disability certificate and she received grievous injuries and that before the Tribunal she had the disability of 70%, as such, these documents^maybe received. In spite of the opportunity was given, no counter is As the I.A.No.3 of filed on behalf of the respondent. taken up along with the 2016/M.A.C.M.A.M.P.NO.2387 of 2016 is being disposed of along with the main Appeal, it is also M.A.C.M.A. 16 Before taking up the Appeal, it is pertinent to look into the case of the petitioner in I.A.No.3 of 2016. The date of accident of the proposed document is was on 07.05.2012. The copy What transpires is that basically, the dated 11.06.2011. petitioner is physically handicapped person affected with polio. as to claim the So, she obtained the proposed document so of the Government. Thus, this benefits under the schemes decide the present M.A.C.M.A. document is irrelevant so as to to establish any disability This particular document is not going on account of the alleged to be sustained bv petitioner

¶43

from the fact that this document is accident in question. Apart M.A.C.M.A, further case of the irrelevant to decide the present essential ingredients of under not satisfying the petitioner is , the proposed document is not order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. Hence at all necessary to decide the Appeal. 17. Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, wound certificate marked on behalf of would contend that the that the appellant received a the petitioner clearly discloses Tribunal that the appellant received fracture. The findings of the all sustainable on facts. Apart from only simple injuries is not at of the appellant PWl, the evidence of PW2 supports the case that she sustained grievous injuries in the road accident. The Tribunal that the appellant received simple injury findings of the basis whatsoever. With the above said are without any would submit that the appellant may be given submissions, he in the an opportunity. If the court Is going to grant the relief her case and additional evidence application so as to prove granted by the Tribunal on various further the compensation grounds is liable to be enhanced. learned counsel for the contesting 18. Sri Puppala Suribabu, 2"'“ respondent, would seeks to support the judgment of the Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner did not prove the before the Tribunal. However, disability or the grievous injury

¶44

¶45

the Tribunal duly considering the factum of receipt of injuries by the petitioner, awarded reasonable sums under various^headsof compensation, as such, there is no need to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 19. There is no dispute that the respondent was the driver of the offending vehicle who did not contest the claim of the petitioner. The evidence on record discloses that on^accountof the rash and negligent driving of the respondent in driving the offending vehicle, the petitioner received injuries. The police investigated the case and filed charge sheet, as evident^from Ex.Al and A2. As seen from the evidence of PWl and PW2 coupled with Ex.A3 wound certificate, the Medical Officer^found swelling on the right leg and he took X-ray. The X-ray^reveals fracture of right tibia. The Medical Officer opined that the injuries are grievous in nature. So, the evidence of^PWlthatshe received a fracture in the accident in question has support from the contents of Ex.A3 and from the evidence of PW2. When that being so, the findings of the Tribunal that the petitioner^received simple injuries is not at all tenable. It appears that^theTribunal did not look into Ex.A3, wound certificate, carefully and properly. Thus, the fact remained is that in the motor^vehicle accident that was occurred on 07.05.2012, in which the 1 St respondent involved, the petitioner received grievous injuries.

¶46

¶47

¶48

There is no dispute that the petitioner was not treated in the hospital as an inpatient. She was only treated^{asoutpatient.} Apart from that, there was no surgical procedure attended on PWl. It appears that the fracture of the petitioner^wastreated by way of conservative treatment. There is no dispute^thatthe petitioner did not sustain any disability. Though the^petitioner was suffering from polio prior to the date of accident, the petitioner did not bring anything in the evidence which^shows that on account of grievous injury she sustained any^disability. As this Court already pointed out that the additional^document proposed to be filed has nothing to do with the disability subsequent to the accident. So, the petitioner is not^entitledto any compensation under the head of disability. 21. But the fact remained is that when the petitioner suffered with a grievous fracture, she was awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/+ Rs.5,000/only under the heads of pain and suffering and simple injury respectively. The petitioner^was a feeble person even prior the accident. She received^afractureon her polio affected leg. The Tribunal ought to have^consideredto award proper amount under the head of grievous injury.^Without ascertaining the fact that, she received grievous injury, the Tribunal simply awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/+ Rs.5,000/towards pain and suffering and towards simple injury.

¶49

¶50

Having looked into the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner^tothepolio affected leg, I am of the considered view, that compensation^of Rs.40,000/- towards grievous injury as a whole is just and reasonable instead of granting an amount of Rs.5,000/as simple and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. Further,^the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/towards extra nourishment. As the petitioner received grievous injury, this amount of Rs.5,000/towards extra nourishment has to be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal considered the loss of income of the petitioner for a period of one week. It is to be noted that as the petitioner received fracture to her polio affected leg, it is reasonable to consider the loss^ofearningsat least for a period of one month and even according to the petitioner she was doing coolie work by earning Rs.3,000/-^per month, as such, the loss of earnings are to be awarded^for a sum of Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs. 1,000/-. 23. Having regard to the above, the petitioner is entitled^for enhancement of compensation accordingly. In the light of the above, I am of the considered view that the award, dated 28.08.2014, just by awarding Rs.17,000/is not sustainable under law and facts, as such, the compensation is liable^tobe enhanced accordingly.

¶51

¶52

In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part with proportionate costs, enhancing the compensation to Rs.54,000/from that of Rs. 17,000/- with the same interest from^thedateof petition till the date of deposit as awarded by the Tribunal by holding that the respondent Nos.l and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount and directing the 2 nd respondent to deposit the difference compensation amount of Rs.37,000/within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on such deposit the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire differentiated amount immediately. 25. I.A.No.3 of 2016/M.A.C.M.A.M.P.NO.2387 of 2016 is concerned shall stand dismissed, accordingly.

¶53

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

¶54

shall stand closed.

¶55

SD/- K SRINIVASA RAJU assistant registrar

//true copy//

SECTION OFFICER

II Additional District

¶60

Three CD Copies

¶61

Psr sree

¶62

Pu^

¶63

HIGH COURT
tED:07/02/2024
- 4

¶64

JUDGMENT + DECREE

¶65

MACMA.No.1754 of 2016

¶66

o
202^

¶67

ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶69

WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶70

PRESENT

¶71

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

¶72

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 1754 OF 2016

¶73

Between:

¶74

Shaik Rajiya, W/o Hanief Musli Aged about 42 years, Coolie, R/o 6 th lane. Srinagar, Guntur, JCJC, Guntur District.

¶75

...Appellant/Petitioner

¶76

AND

¶77

Ramesh Anki Reddy, S/o Seshadri C/o Divya Car travels. Main Road, Chilakaluripet, JCJC, Guntur District. (Owner of Car bearing No.AP-07-AM9786)

¶78

The National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Arundelpet, Guntur, Guntur District. Insurer of TATA INDIGO Car NO.AP-07-AM-9786 With Policy No.551702/31/11/6100002010^Validfrom 20-10-2011 to 29-08-2012

¶79

...Respondents

¶80

Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act, 1988 against the^{Orderanddecree} made in M.V. O.P. No. 154 of 2013 Dated 28-8-2014 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and material papers in the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri G V S Mehar Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant, and Sri P. Suri Babu, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and None Appeared by the 1®‘ Respondent.

¶81

This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶82

That the MACMA be and hereby is Allowed in Part.

¶83

That the proportionate costs, enhancing the compensation to Rs.54,000/from that of Rs. 17,000/- with the same interest from the date of petition till the

¶84

date of deposit as awarded by the Tribunal by holding that the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶85

y,
■a

¶86

H 3.

¶87

That the jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount and directing the 2 respondent to deposit the difference compensation amount of Rs.37,000/within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on such deposit.

¶88

That the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire differentiated amount immediately.

¶89

¶90

That there shall be no order as to costs in this MAGMA.

¶91

SD/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The Gherman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-ll^{AdditionalDistrict} Judge, Guntur, Guntur District (with records if anvl

¶96

Three GD Gopies

¶97

Psr sree

¶98

¶99

V. *T •? HIGH COURT V, DATED :07/02/2024

¶100

DECREE

¶101

MACMA.No.1754 of 2016

¶102

Cjd!

¶103

ALLOWING THE MACMA

Shaik Rajiya, Guntur Dist v. Ramesh Anki Reddy, Guntur District and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Rajiya, Guntur Dist v. Ramesh Anki Reddy, Guntur District and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bandi Sambaiah Vs Gujjarlapudi Santhi

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs B. Yella Subbaiah and Another

Remala Venkata Rami Reddy Vs Gadamsetty Manikanta and Another

Ksrtc, Rep by Its Md, Raichur, Karnataka St Vs Ramannagari Savithri at Savithiramma, Anantapuram Dt and Anr.

S.Sri Devi at Mangalakshmi Devi Vs Peethala Srinivasa Rao and 2 Others

Katta Kanaka Durga at Katta Durgamma Vs Nuthalapati Triveni