Partly allowed

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

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Feb 2024MACMA/1979/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A pillion rider injured in an auto-motorcycle collision appealed the Tribunal award of Rs.2,00,000/-. The High Court found no permanent disability was established, but held medical expenses were wrongly restricted, enhancing compensation to Rs.2,74,500/- payable jointly by driver, owner and insurer.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.2,74,500/- with costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a.; respondent No.3 directed to deposit Rs.74,500/- difference within one month.

S.Sri Devi at Mangalakshmi Devi Vs Peethala… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

o/Ui
z

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

¶6

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 1979 OF 2016

¶7

Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act, 1988 against the Order and decree made in M.V. OP. No. 614 of 2007 Dated 12.01.2011 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Tribunal, (Family Court-cum- Additional District and Sessions Court) Vizianagaram.

¶8

Between:

¶9

S. Sri Devi @ Mangalakshmi Devi, W/o. Late Rama Rao, R/o. Kadapet, L.Kota Mandal Vizianagaram District ...Appellant/Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

Peethala Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Sanyasi Rao, Driver of Auto B.No. AP 35 U 3196 R/o. Thalari Village, L.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram^District

¶12

S. Atchuma Naidu, S/o. Chinnam Naidu, Owner of Auto B.No. AP 35 U 3196 R/o. Plot No. 3-12 Thalari Village, L.Kota mandal Vizianagaram^District

¶13

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager Visakhapatnam

¶14

...Respondents/Respondents

¶15

Counsel for the Appellants : SRI. SARIPALLI SUBRAHMANYAM

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: NONE APPEARED

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SMT. T V SRI DEVI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI D. RAVI KIRAN

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

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

¶21

M.A.C.M.A, No.1979 OF 2016

¶22

JUDGMENT:-

¶23

This M.A.C.M.A. is directed by the claimant against the award, dated 12.01.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.614 of 2007 on^the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Family - cum - Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, ("Tribunal for short), where under, the learned Tribunal as against the claim of the petitioner to a tune of Rs.3,70,000/- towards the compensation for the injuries received by her in a Motor Vehicle accident, granted compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Felt aggrieved^thatthe compensation so awarded is not just and reasonable, the claimant filed the present M.A.C.M.A. 2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter^bereferred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of^convenience. 3. The case of the petitioner/claimant in the claim petition according to the petition averments before the Tribunal,^inbrief, is that: (i) The petitioner is resident of Kasapeta Village, L.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram. She was aged 24 years by the^date of accident. She was hale and healthy by the date of accident.^She was earning Rs.4,000/- by working as a Teacher and conducting

¶24

¶25

tuitions to the students. On 11.06.2007, while the petitioner was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No. AP 35 E 5230 as a pillion rider and reached near Gangubudi Junction at about 07.30 a.m., the respondent No.l driver of the auto bearing No. AP 35 U 3196 ("offending vehicle" for short) dashed^themotor cycle from opposite direction in a rash and negligent^mannerat high speed, as a result, the motor cycle was thrown^anddashed to a tree and the rider of the same died on the spot^and the petitioner fell down and received injuries all over her body. Immediately, she was shifted to Vaishnavi Hospital, Visakhapatnam, Doctors took X-ray and found fractures on right thigh both tibia and fibula of left leg and injuries on right temporal region of scalp and right foot, and right eye brow. The petitioner cannot walk long distances, she cannot squat properly and she cannot stand long time. The petitioner is unable^todo any work due to the injuries sustained by her in the above accident and lost her income. She suffered much pain^andmetal agony and spent huge amounts towards cost of medicines. transport to hospital and extra nourishment. (ii) The above accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e.. respondent No.l. The Station House Officer, L.Kota Police Station registered a case in Crime No.40 of 2007 under^Section

¶26

¶27

338, 304-A of I.P.C. against the respondent No.l who is the driver of the offending vehicle. The respondent No.2 is the vehicle. The offending vehicle was duly owner of the offending insured with respondent No.3. So, the respondent Nos.l^to3are compensation to the jointly and severally liable to pay petitioner. Hence, the claim. 4. The respondent Nos.l and 2, the driver and owner^ofthe offending vehicle did not contest the claim and remained exparte before the Tribunal. 5. It is the respondent No.3-Insurance Company, who contested the claim of the claimant. Respondent No.3 filed counter denying the averments in the petition and disputed the age, income, avocation and the manner of the accident as alleged. Respondent No.3 put the petitioner to strict^proofofthe averments which she made in the claim petition. The further contention of the respondent No.3 is that the petitioner^hasto prove that the offending vehicle was insured with the company and that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid fit condition. The petition driving license and the vehicle was in is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., the^ownerand Insurer of the motor cycle bearing No.AP 35 E 5230. 6. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:

¶28

¶29

(1) Whether the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.l? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, what is the quantum of amount he is entitled to? (3) To what relief?

¶30

During the course of trial before the Tribunal, petitioner examined herself examined as PW.l and further examined PW.2 the medical officer who treated her and further PW.3 who issued so called disability certificate. On behalf of the petitioner. Exs.Al to A9 and Ex.XI were marked. Ex.Al is the copy^ofF.I.R. in Crime No.40 of 2007 of L.Kota Police Station. Ex.A2 is the copy of wound certificate. Ex.A3 is the copy of M.V.I.Report. Ex.A4 is the copy of charge sheet. Ex.AS is Bunch of medical bills for Rs.1,76,814/-. Ex.A6 is discharge summary. Ex.A7 is the disability certificate issued by PW.2. Ex.AS is Latest X-ray. Ex.A.9 is disability certificate issued by Medical Board, Vizianagaram and Ex.XI is case sheet.

¶31

The contesting respondent examined RW.l and further examined the Record Assistant in the Regional Transport Authority, Vizianagaram as RW.2. On behalf of the respondents. Exs.Bl to B4 were marked. Ex.Bl is the policy copy. Ex.B2 is Authorization letter. Ex.B3 is B-Register extract of^the crime vehicle and Ex.B4 is Driving license extract of respondent^No.l.

¶32

¶33

The learned Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found that the accident was occurred due to the rash and^negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e.,^respondent No.l and that respondent Nos.l to 3 are jointly and^severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Accordingly, the Tribunal^passed award with a direction to the respondents jointly and^severally to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5%^perannum from the date of petition till the date of realization^alongwith proportionate costs directing the respondent No.3 to^depositthe amount within one (01) month and on such deposit petitioner was permitted to withdraw 20% of the compensation and the rest of the compensation shall be kept in Karur Vysya Bank, Vizianagaram for a period of three (3) years. Felt^{aggrievedthat} the compensation so awarded is not just and reasonable,^the present M.A.C.M.A. has been filed by the appellant. 10. Now, in deciding this M.A.C.M.A ■ ! the point for determination is as follows:

¶34

(1) Whether the award, dated 12.01.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.614 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum -Family - cum - Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram is sustainable under law and facts

¶35

¶36

and the compensation awarded to the claimant is just^and reasonable under the circumstances?

¶37

Point No.l:

¶38

As seen from the evidence of PW.l who is the petitioner, she put forth the facts in accordance with the pleadings. As seen from the evidence of PW.2, he spoke of the treatment given to PW.l. As seen from the evidence of PW.3, he spoke of the so called issuance of the disability certificate.

¶39

It is to be noted that insofar as the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent^actof the respondent No.l in driving the offending vehicle, there is no cross-objection filed.

¶40

So, the scope of this appeal is to decide as to whether the compensation awarded is just and reasonable. 14. Sri Saripalli Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal did not consider the evidence of the PW.l and PW.3 coupled with the documentary evidence pertaining to the disability sustained by the petitioner and declined to grant any compensation under the head of permanent disability partial in nature. The Tribunal did not consider the medical expenses as claimed by the petitioner and without proper reasons, declined to consider the amount of Rs.74,500/- and the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

¶41

¶42

towards medical expenditure as against the claim of Rs.1,76,814/-. Even the compensation under the other^heads was also not reasonable. With the above contentions, he prays this Court to interfere with the award of the Tribunal so as to enhance the compensation.

¶43

Sri C.Upendra, learned counsel representing Ms.T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for the respondent^No.2would submit that there is no need or necessity to interfere^with the award of the Tribunal.

¶44

In spite of the opportunity given, no arguments were advanced on behalf of the contesting respondent No.3. 17. It is to be noted that insofar as the evidence of PW.l^that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent^actofthe respondent No.l in driving the offending vehicle is^concerned, it has support from Ex.Al-copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.40^of2007 and copy of charge sheet under Ex.A4. Considering the^evidence of PW.l coupled with the above, the Tribunal gave findings^that the petitioner was able to prove that she received grievous injuries and simple injuries in the Motor Vehicle accident,^which was occurred on the account of rash and negligent act^ofthe respondent No.l and in this regard these findings are^notsought to be disturbed by filing any cross-objection.

¶45

¶46

Under the circumstances, the scope of this M.A.C.M.A is admittedly regarding the quantum of compensation. There is no dispute as evident from the evidence of PW.l coupled with Ex.A2-wound certificate that the petitioner received two (02) grievous injuries and three (03) simple injuries during the course of accident. She took treatment from 11.06.2007 to 27.08.2007 for a period of two (02) months fifteen (15) days. In this regard, Ex.Xl-case sheet supports the case of^theclaimant. 19. Firstly, this Court would like to deal with the contention^of the appellant that the Tribunal did not consider the disability as evident from Ex.A7 and Ex.A9.

¶47

It is to be noted that it is a case where the petitioner^did not whisper anything that she sustained partial and permanent disability of 40%. Ex.A7 and Ex.A9 were not filed along^withthe petition. On the other hand, Ex.Xl-case sheet, even it did not whisper about any disability. At the time of discharge of the petitioner from the hospital, she was in good condition. PW.2 the medical officer, who treated PW.l did not speak of any disability. It was the PW.3 who spoke of so called disability. According to PW.3, he examined the petitioner on 11.10.2010. Here, the date of accident was on 11.06.2007. So admittedly. after about three (03) years after the accident, PW.3^claimedto have examined the PW.l and issued a disability certificate. It is

¶48

¶49

to be noted that there was no loss of limb and there was no amputation, Ex.XI reveals that the petitioner-PW.l was discharged from the hospital ih a good condition. The^petitioner received only two (02) grievous injuries and three^(03)simple treated and she was discharged from injuries, for which she was did not produce any piece of the hospital. Even the petitioner that subsequent to the discharge, whether document to show as to get the fracture united. she took any further treatment so So, in my considered view, the Tribunal rightly held that there nature occurred to was no permanent disability partial in of the Motor Vehicle accident. In my petitioner on account considered view, the Tribunal rightly declined to grant any compensation under the head of disability. contention of the appellant that the 21. Now, coming to the Tribunal did not consider the medical expenses incurred by the of medical bills to a tune of petitioner under Ex.A5-bunch Rs.1,76,814/-. This^{Courtwouldliketomake} it clear that the evidence so as to contesting respondent did not bring in any under Ex.AS. Admittedly dispute the medical expenditure of medical bills, the petitioner according to Ex.AS-bunch a tune of calculated the medical expenditure to separately findings that the Rs.1,76,814/-. But the Tribunal made a amounts by including the payments petitioner calculated the

¶50

¶51

towards advance and some bills appears to have written one and the same date and that expenditure appears to have shown on higher side. It is to be noted that when the petitioner calculated the medical expenditure as Rs.1,76,814/-, the Tribunal restricted the claim towards the purchase of medicines and treatment to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Such restriction made by the Tribunal was not with any calculations. If Ex.AS medical expenditure is considered, there is no dispute that there are some bills of same date, but the bills numbers are of different. Apart from this, under the Ex.AS medical expenditure, the petitioner shown an amount of Rs.74,500/- the consolidated amount for bed charges, nursing charges etc.. This amount was not shown in any other documents i.e., medical bills under Ex.AS. So, it appears that the Tribunal without proper scrutiny disallowed the medical expenditure Rs.74,500/-. If Ex.AS is considered carefully. it appears that petitioner did not miscalculate the medical expenditure. The petitioner claimed medical expenditure under Ex.AS-bunch of medical bills and the bills are totally different. In my considered view the Tribunal without there being proper reason, restricted the medical expenditure from that of Rs.l,74,500/- to Rs.l,00,000/-. In my considered the Tribunal ought to have granted the medical expenditure under Ex.AS as it was not brought in evidence that

¶52

¶53

the petitioner claimed medical expenditure excessively. Hence, medical expenditure should be to a tune of Rs.1,74,500/-. 22. With regard to the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/each towards the grievous injury and further Rs.3,000/-^eachtowards the simple injury. The accident was occurred in the^year2007. Considering the same, it cannot be held that compensation under the head of grievous injury and simple injury^islesseron side. The Tribunal further rightly awarded Rs. 10,000/-^towards the transport to hospital and attendant charges and further Rs. 10,000/- towards extra-nourishment and further^Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering. 23. Apart from this, the Tribunal duly considered the period^of treatment and awarded Rs. 16,000/- towards loss of^earnings. Having regard to the above, except restricting the^claimunder the medical expenditure, the compensation that was^awardedby the Tribunal was on reasonable basis. Hence, this Court^isofthe considered view that the medical expenditure restricted^bythe tribunal was not on the proper basis as such appellant/petitione r is entitled to a medical expenditure of Rs. 1,74,500/-^asagainst Rs. 1,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal. To the above^extent,the appeal is liable to be allowed in part.

¶54

¶55

In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,00,000/to Rs.2,74,500/with proportionate costs by holding that the respondent Nos.l to 3 are liable to pay jointly and severally. The respondent No.3 ISidirected to deposit the difference amount of Rs.74,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, within one month from the date of this order and on such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire difference amount.

¶56

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶57

SD/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶58

//TRUE COPY//

¶59

SECTION OFFICER

¶60

To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Tribunal, (Family Court-cum- Additional District and Sessions Court) Vizianagaram (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri Saripalli Subrahmanyam Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Smt. T V Sri Devi, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri D Ravi Kiran, Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi 6. Three CD Copies Psr sree

¶61

■■ >»»,

¶62

HIGH COURT DATED;09/02/2024

¶63

JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.1979 of 2016

¶64

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA

¶65

gipr

¶66

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶67

FRIDAY .THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶68

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶69

PRESENT

¶70

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

¶71

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 1979 OF 2016

¶72

Between:

¶73

S. Sri Devi @ Mangalakshmi Devi, W/o. Late Rama Rao R/o. Kadapet, L.Kota Mandal Vizianagaram District ...Appellant/Petitioner

¶74

AND

¶75

Peethala Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Sanyasi Rao, Driver of Auto B.No. AP 35 U 3196 R/o. Thalari Village, L.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram^District

¶76

S. Atchuma Naidu, S/o. Chinnam Naidu, Owner of Auto B.No. AP 35 U 3196 R/o. Plot No. 3-12 Thalari Village, L.Kota mandal Vizianagaram^District

¶77

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager Visakhapatnam ^

¶78

...Respondents/Respondents

¶79

Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act, 1988 against the Order and decree made in M.V. O.P. No. 614 of 2007 Dated 12.01.2011 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Tribunal, (Family Court-cum- Additional District and Sessions Court) Vizianagaram, 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 Saripalli Subrahmanyam, Advocate for the Appellant, and Smt. T V Sri Devi, Advocate for Respondent No.2, Sri D Ravi Kiran, Advocate for Respondent No.3 and None Appeared by Respondent No.1

¶80

This Court Doth Order and Decree as follows;-

¶81

That the MACMA be and hereby is Allowed in part.

¶82

That the enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs 2 74 500/with proportionate costs by holding that the respondent Nos, 1 to 3 are liable to pay jointly and severally.

¶83

That the respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the difference amount of

¶84

^ Rs.74,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till

¶85

the date of realization, within one month from the date of this order

¶86

That the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire difference amount. 5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this MAGMA

¶87

SD/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶88

//TRUE COPY//

¶89

To,
2. Three CD Copies
Psr
sree

SECTION OFFICER

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/02/2024

DECREE

MACIVIA.No.1979 of 2016

¶95

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

Bandi Sambaiah Vs Gujjarlapudi Santhi

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

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

Katta Kanaka Durga at Katta Durgamma Vs Nuthalapati Triveni

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Rally Sai Likith Bharadwaj