Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 278
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, BATTU DEVANAND, JJ.
D.Basheer Ahmed Jan, Chittoor Dist – Appellant
Versus
N.P.Ramachandra Naidu – Respondent
I.A.No. 1 of 2020 in M.A.C.M.A. No. 1153 of 2013
Decided on : 16-03-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA
For the Respondent: KOTA SUBBA RAO, P BHASKAR
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Vehicular Accident – Compensation – Appeal is preferred by claimant challenging Award passed in M.V.O.P. on file of Court of District Judge-cum-Chairman, wherein, Tribunal, while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant – Held, It is stated in affidavit that petitioner suffered cervical card injury which is grievous in nature and it is a partial permanent disability, as such, he cannot do his regular house-hold chores, and to this effect, he obtained Certificate for Person with Disability from Medical Board, Government Hospital, which he could not obtain earlier and produce before Tribunal in assessing his disability – Hence prays to consider the same for enhancement of compensation – No doubt Certificate for Person With Disability issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh reveals that claimant suffered 62% of physical disability, same cannot be looked into unless person or persons who issued certificate depose to contents of certificate, thereby making it admissible in evidence – I.A. is allowed – Court set aside Award under challenge – Appeal Allowed (Paras 9, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
Claimant was proceeding in JBT Bus bearing No. AP03 U 6099 from Chittoor to Hyderabad, and when it reached near Sathamari village, met with an accident when the said bus dashed against the road divider due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime bus. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Relief Hospital – claimant was proceeding in JBT Bus bearing No. AP03 U 6099 from Chittoor to Hyderabad, and when it reached near Sathamari village, met with an accident when the said bus dashed against the road divider due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime bus. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Relief Hospital.
Findings of The court:
It is stated in affidavit that petitioner suffered cervical card injury which is grievous in nature and it is a partial permanent disability, as such, he cannot do his regular house-hold chores, and to this effect, he obtained Certificate for Person with Disability from Medical Board, Government Hospital, which he could not obtain earlier and produce before Tribunal in assessing his disability – Hence prays to consider the same for enhancement of compensation – No doubt Certificate for Person With Disability issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh reveals that claimant suffered 62% of physical disability, same cannot be looked into unless person or persons who issued certificate depose to contents of certificate, thereby making it admissible in evidence
Result: Appeal Allowed
JUDGMENT:
C. Praveen Kumar, J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the Award dated 12.03.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 77 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, wherein, the Tribunal, while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.5,96,645/-for the injuries sustained by the claimant.
2. As seen from the record, originally the claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.50.00 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident which occurred on 04.06.2008 at 07:30 A.M. at Sathamari village, near Shamshabad on Chittoor – Hyderabad National Highway due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the JBT Bus bearing No. AP03 U 6099.
3. The facts in issue show that on 04.06.2008 at about 07:30 a.m., while the claimant was proceeding in JBT Bus bearing No. AP03 U 6099 from Chittoor to Hyderabad, and when it reached near Sathamari village, met with an accident when the said bus dashed against the road divider due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime bus. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Relief Hospital, Hyderabad, and after receiving first aid, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad where he was kept in ICU from 04.06.2008 to 26.06.2008. From there, he was shifted to Mother Emergency Hospital, Tirupati where he took treatment from 27.06.2008 to 28.07.2008. Thereafter, he took treatment from Dr.Ravisekhar Reddy, Neuro Physician, as out-patient and underwent physiotherapy in Sri Vigneswara Physiotherapy and Obefit Clinic, Tirupati from 29.07.2008 to 31.12.2008 and was forced to stay in Tirupati for six months. Later, the claimant took treatment in Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore by staying in Chittoor. He also underwent physiotherapy treatment in Krishna Physiotherapy Centre in Chittoor. Due to the injuries, the claimant became permanently disabled and cannot move from bed without assistance. During the period of treatment, his earned leave and medical leave were completely exhausted, as such, he availed further earned leave for four months incurring loss in salary. The Station House Officer, Shamshabad Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 180 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC against the driver of the crime bus. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in the Court of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad.
4. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent – insurer and the 4th respondent, who is the legal heir of the 1st respondent – owner of the crime vehicle, filed written statements resisting the claim while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the petitioner, manner of accident, rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the crime bus, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, alleged permanent disability and liability to pay compensation and contended that the claim for compensation is high, excessive and without any basis.
5. On the strength of the pleadings of both the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent’s bus bearing Registration No. AP03 U 6099?
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident, if so, to what amount and from whom?
6. To substantiate his claim, the claimant examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A26. Nobody was examined on behalf of the respondents except getting marked Ex.B1 and Ex.X1.
7. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PW1 corroborated from the evidence of Exs.A1 to A3 held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime bus and granted compensation of Rs.5,96,645/-. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensat
