CMA/4707/2004 of Akula Appamma Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, on 31 December 2014

J U D G M E N T:

This appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner under Section173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), aggrievedby the order, dated 25.06.2004, passed by the Chairman, MotorVehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Guntur, in M.V.O.P.No.985 of 1999,awarding compensation of Rs.15,000/-.

2. The appellant/petitioner filed the above O.P under Sections166 & 140 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.60,000/- onaccount of the injuries received by her in a motor vehicle accident,that occurred on 12.06.1999.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will bereferred to as they are arrayed in the Original Petition.

4. The brief averments made in the petition are that on12.06.1999 at about 1:30 p.m, while the petitioner was purchasingmangoes on the road side cart, the driver of the RTC bus bearingNo.AEZ.3627, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner andhit the petitioner and caused injuries to her. Immediately after theaccident, petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital,Sattenapalli and from there she was referred to Guntur GeneralHospital, Guntur. Police, Sattenapalli Town registered the case inCr.No.101 of 1999 against the driver of the RTC bus. The petitionerwas hale and healthy working as a coolie and earning Rs.50/- perday at the time of accident and due to the said accident, she losther earning power and spent huge amount towards her treatment. Due to the accident, she suffered disability, which is permanent innature and the respondent being the owner of the bus is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

5. The brief averments made in the counter filed by therespondent are as follows:

The respondent put the petitioner to prove the manner ofaccident, age and income of the petitioner and specifically statedthat the petitioner is only a house wife and she is not working ascoolie. Further, the petitioner exaggerated the injury caused to herin the accident, whereas she received only a simple injury, which issuperficial in nature and finally stated that the compensationclaimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and imaginary andfinally prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues andto substantiate the claim, the petitioner got examined PWs.1 & 2and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 on her behalf. On behalf of therespondent, RW.1 was examined and no documentary evidencewas adduced.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, theTribunal awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- along with interestat 9% p.a to the petitioner against the respondent.

8. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by theTribunal, the petitioner preferred the present appeal forenhancement of compensation.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ petitionerargued that there is sufficient evidence to show that the petitionersuffered grievous injury and due to the said injury, she suffereddisability; that the Tribunal failed to consider all these aspects andgranted meagre compensation and prayed the Court to enhance thecompensation.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondentconceded that petitioner received one grievous injury, but statedthat she has not suffered any disability. Further, in the year 1999,the accident took place and the Tribunal granted just andreasonable compensation to the petitioner; that the petitioner alsonot proved that she is working as a coolie; that on the other hand,petitioner is a housewife and no compensation is required to grantunder the head of loss of income and prayed the Court to dismissthe appeal.

11. Having regard to the submissions made by the learnedcounsel appearing for both parties, the points which are to bedecided in this appeal are as follows:

1. Whether the appellant/petitioner is entitled forenhancement of compensation as prayed for ornot?enhancement of compensation as prayed for ornot?

2. Whether the compensation granted by theTribunal is just and reasonable or not?Tribunal is just and reasonable or not?

12. POINTS 1 & 2: A perusal of the record shows that there isno dispute of the fact that the accident occurred due to the rash andnegligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AEZ.3627and therefore, the findings of the Tribunal regarding the manner ofaccident needs no interference.

13. As far as the quantum of compensation awarded by theTribunal to the petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel for theappellant contended that the Tribunal has not awarded anycompensation under the heads of pain and sufferings, loss ofincome, medicines and extra nourishment and therefore, prayed theCourt to enhance the compensation.

14. A perusal of the evidence of PW.1 shows that in the accident, she sustained injury to her right hand shoulder and also on herwaist. Immediately after the accident, she was shifted toGovernment Hospital, Sattenapalli and from there she was shiftedto Guntur General Hospital, Guntur, and she spent Rs.10,000/-towards medical expenses. PW.1 also stated that she is anagricultural coolie and used to get Rs.50/- per day; that due to theinjury, she is unable to do any work. To prove the injuries sufferedby the petitioner, PW.2 doctor from Orthopaedic Department,Guntur General Hospital, Guntur, was examined and he stated thatpetitioner received fracture of right clavicle bone and it is agrievous injury and Ex.A3 is the wound certificate. PW.2 alsostated that due to the said injury, there is 10% disability and that on12.06.1999, she was admitted in the hospital and discharged fromthe hospital on 21.06.1999.

15. A perusal of the evidence of PW.1 & 2 shows that in theaccident, the petitioner sustained one grievous injury and due to thesaid injury, she took treatment in Guntur General Hospital, Gunturfor about 10 days. It is nodoubt, that the treatment taken by thepetitioner in the Government Hospital is free of cost, but the factremains that the petitioner might have spent some amount towardsmedical expenses and extra nourishment. Further, during these 10days period, she ought not have been worked as agriculturalcoolie. So far as disability suffered by the petitioner is concerned,she has not filed any certificate issued by the Medical Boardsituated at Guntur General Hospital, Guntur. Therefore, petitioneris not entitled for any compensation under the head of disability.

16. From a perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it isnodoubt clear that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensationunder the head of pain and sufferings, medical expenses and extra nourishment. Therefore, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awardedtowards pain and sufferings. Rs.5,000/- is awarded towardsmedical expenses and Rs.2,000/- is awarded towards extranourishment and Rs.1,000/- is awarded towards loss of income tothe petitioner. Thus, in total, the petitioner is entitled forRs.33,000/- [Rs.15,000/- (already awarded) + Rs.18,000/-] ascompensation.

17. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the appeal ispartly allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunalto the appellant/petitioner from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.33,000/-. Noorder as to costs.

18. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shallstand closed.

Date: .12.2014 sr

_____________

ANIS, J