Andhra Pradesh High Court - AmravatiKorivi Syambabu vs Danda Raja Rao Anr. on 20 July, 2022Bench: V.SujathaHONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA\n\n               M.A.C.M.A.No.1149 of 2006\n\nJUDGMENT:The appellant, who is injured, filed this appeal\n\naggrieved by the order and decree dated 07.10.2005 passed\n\nin M.V.O.P.No.517 of 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims\n\nTribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge's Court, Guntur,\n\ngranting a compensation of Rs.15,000/- with proportionate\n\ncosts and interest at 6% p.a. as against the claim of\n\n1,05,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the\n\naccident occurred on 11.03.2002.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred\n\nto as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.2.   The claimant filed the O.P. underSection 166of the\n\nMotor    Vehicles    Act,   claiming     compensation     of\n\nRs.1,05,000/- against the respondents 1 and 2, for the\n\ninjuries sustained by him. On 11.03.2002 at about\n\n2.00P.M., while the claimant was going on left side of N.H.9\n\nroad in Chilakaluripet town towards Narasaraopet Centre\n                               2                           VS, J\n\n                                           MACMA.No.1149 of 2006\n\n\nand when he reached near Samrat Hotel, the driver of the\n\n1st respondent's auto coming from Ongole side with high\n\nspeed in a rash and negligent manner and without taking\n\nproper care, without blowing horn, dashed the claimant\n\nfrom behind, as a result of which, the claimant fell down\n\nand the auto tyre ran over his right leg and thus, he\n\nreceived grievous injuries to his right ankle joint resulting\n\npermanent disability. After first aid, he was taken to\n\nGovernment General Hospital, Guntur, where he took\n\ntreatment as inpatient. A case in Crime No.54 of 2002 was\n\nregistered by Chilakaluripet Town Police Station. The\n\nclaimant underwent operation and got inserted steel rods\n\nto his right ankle joint. He sustained permanent disability\n\ndue to the injuries and became disabled. He lost his\n\nearning capacity due to the disability. He spent amount\n\ntowards medicines and extra nourishment. Hence, the\n\nclaimant filed the O.P. seeking compensation for the\n\ninjuries sustained in the said accident.3.   The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd\n\nrespondent-insurance company filed the counter denying\n                                     3                               VS, J\n\n                                                   MACMA.No.1149 of 2006\n\n\nthe averments of the petition and disputed the accident as\n\nwell as the age, income and avocation of the injured.4.      Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues\n\nare framed for its consideration:1) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and\n        negligent driving of the driver of Auto No.AP-7W-\n        1455?2) Whether    the     petitioner   is   entitled   for   the\n        compensation, if so, what amount and from which of\n        the respondents?3) To what relief?5.      During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimant,\n\nPW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 and X.1 and X.2\n\nwere marked. On behalf of the respondents, none were\n\nexamined and no documents were marked.6.      The Tribunal, based on the evidence of PW.1 coupled\n\nwith Ex.A.1 to A.3, came to the conclusion that the\n\naccident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of\n\nthe lorry. Basing on the evidence of PW.2, the doctor, who\n\ntreated the injured, coupled with Ex.X.1 and X.2, the\n                                   4                          VS, J\n\n                                              MACMA.No.1149 of 2006\n\n\nTribunal, having observed that there was no medical record\n\nin assessing the disability, held that the claimant is\n\nentitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards the injuries,\n\nand       accordingly,        awarded   Rs.15,000/-      towards\n\ncompensation with proportionate costs and interest at 6%\n\np.a. from the date of petition till realisation. Seeking\n\nenhancement of the compensation, the present appeal is\n\nfiled.7.       Heard   Sri   Siva    Ramakrishna,   learned    counsel\n\nappearing for the appellant and Sri N. Ramakrishna,\n\nlearned counsel for the 2nd respondent.8.       Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that\n\nthe Tribunal failed to take into account the evidence of\n\nPW.2-the doctor, who treated the claimant at the Hospital\n\nand ought to have assessed the disability at 30%. The\n\nTribunal erred in holding that there was no specific\n\nevidence to show how many days the claimant was in the\n\nhospital for treatment and there was no evidence to show\n\nthat the claimant lost his earning capacity due to the\n                                5                            VS, J\n\n                                             MACMA.No.1149 of 2006\n\n\ndisability and awarded only Rs.15,000/- with interest at\n\n6% p.a. which is very meagre in nature.9.     Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the\n\ncase and the submissions of the counsel and on perusal of\n\nthe material on record coupled with the evidence on record\n\nand the award under appeal, this court found that the\n\nfindings given by the Tribunal that the accident occurred\n\ndue to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the\n\noffending auto on account of which the claimant sustained\n\ninjuries became final and needs no interference.10.    Coming    to   the   quantum   of   compensation,      the\n\nTribunal, basing on the medical evidence and considering\n\nthe gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant,\n\ngranted Rs.15,000/- towards compensation. As seen from\n\nthe award as well as the evidence of PW.2-the doctor, the\n\ninjured-claimant sustained the following two injuries:1) A contusion over medial malleoulus of the right ankle\n       joint measuring 5 X 5cms;2) Abrasion of 3 X 2 cms size.6                           VS, J\n\n                                           MACMA.No.1149 of 2006The evidence of the doctor also shows that the present\n\nmovement of the ankle joint was restricted. Therefore, the\n\ninjuries sustained by the claimant can be considered to be\n\ngrievous in nature. Hence, in view of the severity of the\n\ninjuries, this court is of the considered opinion that the\n\nclaimant is entitled to be granted Rs.15,000/- for each\n\ninjury, which comes to Rs.30,000/-. Further, in view of the\n\ninjuries sustained by the claimant, obviously he must have\n\nspent some amount for the medicines etc. Though the\n\nclaimant claimed that he spent Rs.5,000/- towards medical\n\nexpenses, the Tribunal refused to grant the same. Having\n\nregard to the nature of the injuries sustained, obviously\n\nthe claimant must have spent some amount towards\n\nmedicines and extra nourishment etc. Hence, the claimant\n\nis entitled to be granted Rs.5,000/- towards medicines as\n\nclaimed.11.   Coming to the claim of 30% permanent partial\n\ndisability, as per the evidence of PW.2-the doctor, it is\n\nfound that the present movement of the ankle joint is\n\nrestricted and it is difficult for the claimant to walk on the\n                                  7                        VS, J\n\n                                           MACMA.No.1149 of 2006\n\n\nuneven surface and he cannot perform the labourous\n\nactivity and the disability is 30% partially permanent,\n\nproving which, the claimant failed to file any disability\n\ncertificate. In the absence of proper evidence, this court is\n\nnot inclined to grant any amount under the head "loss of\n\nearnings".12.   Coming to the rate of interest as awarded, the\n\nTribunal awarded interest at 6% p.a. from the date of\n\npetition till the date of deposit. Having considered the\n\nsubmissions of the learned counsel and in the facts and\n\ncircumstances of the case, interest of justice would be\n\nbetter served, if the rate of interest is enhanced to 7.5%\n\np.a. from 6%p.a.13.   Therefore, in view of foregoing discussion, the appeal\n\nis partly allowed enhancing the quantum of compensation\n\nfrom Rs.15,000/- to Rs.35,000/- with interest at 7.5%\n\nfrom the date of petition till the date of realisation. There\n\nshall be no order as to costs.8                         VS, J\n\n                                         MACMA.No.1149 of 2006As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,\n\npending shall stand closed._______________\n                                           V. SUJATHA, J\n\nDate: 14.07.2022\nKsn