Allowed

Gandla Bhoodevi v. M/s.Chaya Bhmarg Travels

Telangana HC7 Aug 2014MACMA/1511/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Hon'ble Court examined the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Court evaluated the evidence regarding injuries and treatment, relying on the distinction between public and private documents. Consequently, the Trial Court's award was enhanced from Rs. 28,500 to Rs. 48,500.

What did the court decide?

Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 48,500. Respondents directed to deposit Rs. 20,000 along with interest.

Gandla Bhoodevi Vs M/s.Chaya Bhmarg Travels — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

M.A.C.M.A. No.1511 OF 2007

¶3

Dated 7 th August, 2014

¶4

Between :

¶5

Gundla Bhoodevi

¶6

… Appellant a n d

¶7

M/s.Chaya Hemarg Travels & another

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.1511 OF 2007

¶10

JUDGMENT:

¶11

Seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded in O.P.No.1854 of 2002 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-III Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the claimant preferred the present appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act.

¶12

For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶13

The facts in brief are as follows:

¶14

The claimant filed a petition under section 166 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a road accident that took place on 07.11.2002. It is stated that on that day when the petitioner and others were travelling in two tractors bearing Nos.AP-25-F-1781 and AP-25-F6367 with trailors from Pipri to Badapahad and at about 11.45 p.m. after reaching near Manikbandar, petitioner and others got down from tractors for attending nature calls. At that time one private bus bearing No.MH-

¶15

01-L-7059, driven by its driver with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from Armoor side and dashed the tractors and trailors. As a result of which, the petitioner and others sustained injuries. It is stated that petitioner sustained fractures to spine, left ankle and injuries on head, back, legs, ribs, chest and on other parts of the body. Immediately thereafter, she was taken to the hospital of one Dr.Narsingrao at Nizamabad for treatment. Later, she was shifted to a specialized doctor for further treatment. It is stated that the claimant spent Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.50,000/- for treatment, medicines and other charges and that she has to spend substantial amount towards future treatment. Alleging that the injured was earning Rs.8,000/- per month by doing agriculture work prior to accident, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.

¶16

The first respondent remained ex parte.

¶17

The second respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in the petition including the age, earnings of the injured, manner of accident, injuries sustained, incurring and expenditure towards treatment. It was stated that the driver was not having valid and subsisting driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. It was further contended that the 1^st respondent has not intimated about the accident to it as contemplated under Section 158 (6) of M.V. Act and thereby violated the policy conditions. In any event, it is stated that the claim made is excessive and unsustainable in law.

¶18

Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial:

¶19

(1) Whether the motor vehicle accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Private Bus bearing No.MH-01-L-7059 by its driver resulting in injuries to the petitioner/

¶20

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?

¶21

(3) To what relief?

¶22

On behalf of the claimant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and

¶23

Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but however, they got marked Ex.B.1.

¶24

After appraising the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal while holding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus awarded a total compensation of Rs.28,500/- payable by respondents with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶25

Heard Sri Yellanand Gupta, learned Counsel for appellant.

¶26

The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged either by the injured or by the Insurance Company.

¶27

The only point that arises for consideration is ‘whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?’ P.W.1 in her evidence stated that in the accident that took place on 07.11.2002 she sustained fractures to lumbar spine, left ankle and injuries on other parts of the body. It is stated that immediately after the accident she was taken to P.W.2, who after giving preliminary treatment, referred her to Hyderabad for further treatment. Ex.A.2, the injury certificate issued by Government Hospital at Nizamabad, is placed on record to prove the nature of injuries sustained by the injured. P.W.2 in his evidence stated that he examined the injured-claimant and found fracture of lumbar spine with parapligea and fracture of calcanium of the left ankle. According to him, both the injuries are grievous in nature. P.W.2 in his evidence did not speak about taking of x-rays and also about referring the petitioner to Hyderabad for better treatment. The claimant placed on record four x-rays out of which two x-rays pertain to left ankle. She also placed on record five prescriptions issued by several doctors viz., Dr.B.Karunakar of Arpitha Hospital dated 18.07.2003, prescription of Dr.Bhupathi Reddy dated 22.06.2004 and also of one Dr.R.Sridhar ENT

¶28

Specialist dated 07.07.2005. Hence, on the basis of the above averments, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to more compensation than what was awarded by the Tribunal.

¶29

A perusal of the material on record would disclose that

¶30

Ex.A.2-wound certificate was said to have been issued by the Government Hospital at Nizamabad and the same was signed by PW.2. So, the evidence of P.W.2 runs contrary to that of P.W.1. In his evidence, P.W.2 deposed that he examined P.W.1 in his private clinic and found fracture of lumbar spine with parapligea and fracture of calcanium of the left ankle. Without getting any x-ray, P.W.2 issued a certificate stating that the injuries sustained by the claimant are fracture injuries, which are grievous in nature. The same cannot be accepted. The medical prescriptions, which are placed on record, relate to treatment taken by the injured long after the accident. There is no material to show whether the treatment given by those three doctors relate to the accident, which is subject matter of the present case. In fact, at the earliest point of time, there was no reference to ENT doctor. Since said three doctors were not examined and as they treated the claimant long after the accident, the prescriptions which are alleged to have been issued by those doctors cannot be taken into consideration for awarding compensation.

¶31

In National Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad v. Ahmed

¶32

Ali @ Mohd. Ali and anothe r^[1] this Court held that a clear distinction should be made between private documents and public documents, while raising objection to the contents of the document without examining the author. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly rejected these prescriptions while deciding the compensation to be awarded to the claimants.

¶33

Since the accident in question is not in dispute and the fact that the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Nizamabad, immediately after the accident is also not in dispute, the claimant must have incurred some expenditure towards treatment. Basing on the evidence available

¶34

on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of treatment, Rs.2,000/- towards pain and suffering and a further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment. Apart from that, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- for the two fracture injuries sustained. A sum of Rs.4,500/- was also awarded towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the quantum of compensation awarded towards pain and suffering and also towards transportation and extra nourishment are on lower side.

¶36

It is to be noted that after the accident, the claimant was taken to Nizamabad for treatment. Though P.W.1 claims that she took treatment, there is no evidence with regard to the nature of treatment taken in the hospital. But she must have incurred some expenditure in getting herself shifted from the scene of offence to a hospital at Nizamabad. In view of the finding of the Tribunal that the claimant was in the hospital for nearly three months, she must have spent some amount in taking good nourishment. Having regard to the nature of injuries, though not proved by adducing proper evidence, but as the finding of the Tribunal itself discloses that she sustained two fractures, definitely, the claimant must have undergone immense mental trauma, pain and suffering during the period of treatment in hospital and for sometime thereafter. Under those circumstances, I deem it appropriate to award a further sum of Rs.7,500/towards pain and suffering and further sum of Rs.2,500/- towards transportation and extra nourishment. Similarly the amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the two grievous injuries sustained by the claimant also appears to be unreasonable, hence, the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-.

¶37

Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part and the compensation of Rs.28,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.48,500/-. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of order

¶38

of the Tribunal till realization. The claimant is entitled to withdraw the enhanced compensation amount as and when the deposit is made. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

¶40

_____________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 7^th August, 2014. sur [1] 2011 (2) ALD 806

Gandla Bhoodevi v. M/s.Chaya Bhmarg Travels

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gandla Bhoodevi v. M/s.Chaya Bhmarg Travels

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meesala Nageswaramma Vs Siva Cheederla

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Md. Nayeemuddin

Godavathi Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Rukkus Save-n-Smile Cosmetic and Dental Hospital, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Rukkuss Save-n-Smile Consmetic and Dental Hospital, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ponnam Prabhakar Vs Md. Neesar