Appeal by APSRTC challenging compensation award for claimant who lost a leg in an accident. Court rejected appeal despite multiplier and interest disputes, noting total loss of earnings for a mason justifies original award.
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs and pending miscellaneous petitions dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR
M.A.C.M.A.NO.158 OF 2005
JUDGMENT:
The Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation filed this appeal challenging the award dated 12.08.2003 passed in O.P.No.575 of 2001 by the District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, whereby and whereunder, the Tribunal below awarded compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- to the claimant-respondent herein.
The brief facts of the case are that on 21.11.1999, while the claimant was proceeding from Markapur to Ongole in APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-10-Z-1006, the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against a stationed lorry, due to which the claimant and others sustained injuries. The claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Ongole. Thereafter, he was shifted to Stenly Hospital, Madras, wherein his right leg was amputated. Contending that he sustained permanent disability and has lost all his future earnings, he claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. According to the claimant, he was aged about 30 years on the date of the accident and was earning Rs.150/- to Rs.170/- per day by working as a Mason.
The Corporation filed a counter affidavit resisting the claim of the claimant on various grounds. The Tribunal below framed the following issues.
1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-1006?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount?
3. To what relief?
As far as the first issue is concerned, the Tribunal below, on appreciation of the evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. As far as issue No.2 is concerned, the Tribunal below awarded total compensation at Rs.1,72,000/-.
The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the
appellant-Corporation is that the claimant has not examined the doctor, who conducted operation and amputated the leg of the claimant. Her next submission is that the claimant got discharged from the Government Hospital, Ongole, against the medical advice and there is nothing on record to show where he was operated. She further contended that the Tribunal below has wrongly applied multiplier ‘20’ instead of multiplier ‘17’. It is also her contention that the interest should not exceed 6% per annum.
Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant submitted that the claimant was shifted to Stenly Hospital, Madras, wherein operation was conducted and his right leg was amputated below the knee.
The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined P.W2, Dr.K.Sarala Devi and P.W.3, Dr.N.Chandrasekhara Rao, who issued Ex.A4-disability certificate. According to the claimant, he sustained crush injury to his right leg and then, he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Ongole and for better treatment, he was shifted t o Stenly Hospital, Madras and there his right leg was amputated. Admittedly, the records of the Stenly Hospital, Madras, were not summoned and no doctor from the said hospital was examined. P.W.2 is a Civil Assistant Surgeon working in the District Head Quarters Hospital, Ongole. According to her, on 22.11.1999 i.e., on the very next day of the accident, she examined the claimant and found the following injuries.
1. Crush injury on right foot with lower 3rd of right leg. Fracture bones exposed through the wound.
2. Swelling and tenderness of left leg.
Further, the X-ray of right leg with knee A.P. and lateral views showed fracture of both bones of right leg lower half and X-ray of right leg with ankle showed the same. Her evidence further revealed that the claimant was admitted on 22.11.1999 and was discharged on 24.11.1999 against the medical advice. P.W.3 is not a doctor, who treated the claimant but examined him and issued the disability
certificate-Ex.A4.
As far as amputation of right leg is concerned, no suggestion was put to the claimant that his leg was not amputated. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 clearly established that the right leg of the claimant was amputated. When P.W.1 was examined before the Court, the fact that his right leg was amputated was not disputed. More over, amputation would be visible to the naked eye when the claimant was examined in Court. Merely because P.W.1 (the claimant) has not examined the doctor, who amputated the leg and not summoned any documents from the Stenly Hospital, Madras, it cannot be a ground to deny the fact that his right leg was amputated.
As far as awarding of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal below has taken the earnings of the petitioner at Rs.50/- per day and disability at 45%, but in cases of amputation of leg of a Mason or any other labourer or artisan, it is common knowledge that such person cannot do any hard work. Though the disability certificate shows that the claimant sustained only 45% disability, the Tribunal below has committed a mistake in taking the disability at 45% because in case of labourers and masons, there would be total loss of earnings and 100% disability has to be taken for calculating the loss of earnings. In view of the same, though it appears that the Tribunal below ought to have taken multiplier ‘17’ instead of ‘20’ and 6% interest but taking into consideration the total loss of earnings, the age of the claimant and other circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the award passed by the lower Tribunal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.
___________________ (B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J)
11th December 2013 RRB
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal in the motor vehicle accident case requires interference?
The Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation
The Claimant
B. Chandra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
