THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.925 OF 2007 Date: 04.06.2014 Between:
Shaik Akaviti Valli … Petitioner And
1. Shaik Yaqub
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by Divisional Manager, D.O., Alkarim Trade Centre, Rani Gunj, Hyderabad. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.925 OF 2007 JUDGMENT:
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P.No.2855 of 2004 on the file of the III-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the same.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 and perused the material available on record.
The facts in issue are as under:
On 01.09.2004 while the claimant was proceeding on his Chetak Scooter at Nalgonda Crossroads, Malakpet, Hyderabad, a Car bearing No.AP 9Q 19 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came and hit the scooter of the claimant. As a result of which, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment. In respect of the above incident, a criminal case was registered, police investigated into the matter and filed a charge-sheet against one Ravi Kumar Agarwal, who is the driver of the crime vehicle. Ex.A- 5 is the copy of the charge sheet. Since the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle, the claimant filed O.P.No.2855 of 2004 on the file of the Court of III-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad claiming compensation of Rs.1 lakh for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident.
The 1st respondent, owner of the vehicle filed his counter contending that no accident took place and no case was registered against him. He claimed that he had sold away his car to one Ravi Kumar Agarwal and delivered the vehicle on 23.2.2003. Therefore, according to him, he cannot be mulcted with liability.
The 2nd respondent Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments in the petition, disputing the age, occupation of the claimant and also the manner in which the accident took place.
Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal below framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the accident is occurred on 1.9.2004 at about 9.30 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the Esteem Car bearing No. AP 9Q 19 by its driver causing permanent disability to the petitioner?
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, and if so to what amount and from which of the respondents?
(3) To what relief?
After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal below held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No.AP 9Q 19 and by treating the injury sustained by the claimant as simple in nature awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the said injury, Rs.2,000/- towards pain & suffering and Rs.3,000/- for transport, food and assistance, thus totalling to Rs.10,000/-. The said finding has become final as the same was challenged neither by the Insurance Company nor the owner of the vehicle.
The only point that arise for consideration is whether the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable, just and fair.
The oral evidence of P.W.1 (claimant/appellant herein) establishes that on the date of incident he sustained grievous injuries. After the accident, the claimant was taken to Yashoda Hospital where the grievous injury sustained by him was treated. In support of the same, the claimant filed Ex.A- 2 Discharge Summary issued by the Hospital which shows that there was a tenderness on the left knee with suspected fracture on the upper end of tibia. It is said that Precutaneous Cancellous Screw fixation of left knee was done on 4.9.2004 to the claimant. The bills in support of the medical expenditure and the treatment taken by the claimant was sought to be proved by producing Ex.A2 and Ex.A8. But strangely the Doctor who treated the claimant in the said hospital, which is a private hospital is not examined. The genuinity and authenticity of the medical bills which are produced on record as Ex.A8 are not established either by examining the Doctor who treated the claimant or any representative of the said hospital.
As held by this Court in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY v.
[1]
MOHD. KHAJA RASOOL SAYED unless medical officer is examined, no reliance can be placed on the bills, prescriptions and the wound certificates. In view of the above, the Tribunal rightly rejected the material to show that the claimant (appellant herein) was an in-patient in the hospital and that he has undergone operation in Yashoda Hospital incurring medical expenditure during the period of his treatment. But the fact remains that the claimant has sustained one grievous injury in the accident which is evident from the First Information Report and the Charge-sheet. One of the injury which was referred to in the Discharge summary also shows tenderness on the left knee with suspected fracture. The said injury is definitely a grievous injury which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance company.
The Tribunal erred in awarding a paltry sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) for the said injury which in my view needs to be enhanced. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) shall be awarded as against Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) awarded towards the grievous injury sustained by the claimant. The additional amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded above is in addition to Rs.2,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering.
When the claimant has sustained grievous injury, which was suspected to be a fracture, definitely he would have undergone lot of mental trauma during the said period. Though there is no legal material available on record to show the treatment taken by him at Yashoda Hospital, but definitely the claimant must have incurred some expenditure towards extra nourishment and other incidental charges during the said period. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to award a further sum of Rs.3,000/- under the above heads.
In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed while enhancing the compensation from Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to Rs.23,000/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand only) against both the respondents with joint and several liability. The enhanced amount will carry interest of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR,J Date: 04.06.2014 GBS
[1] 2003 (5) ALD 162