Annapareddy Venkata Ramanamma v. Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation
HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3150 of 2004
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), aggrieved by the award dated 15.07.2002, passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, in M.V.O.P.No.868 of 1998, awarding compensation of Rs.18,000/-.
2. The appellant/petitioner filed the above O.P under Sections 140, 160 & 163-A of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.09.1998.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Petition.
4. The brief averments made in the petition are that on 24.09.1998, while the petitioner was travelling in an Auto Rickshaw bearing No.AP.7T.5641 along with others and when the Auto reached near Nallapadu Polytechnic College, one R.T.C Bus bearing No.AP.10Z.4021 driven in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and hit the auto in which the petitioner was travelling. Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained a fracture to her right leg and steal rods were inserted. She also sustained injury to her head along with others. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Vijaya Bhaskar Hospital, Guntur, where she underwent operation to her right leg. The petitioner was hale and healthy and used to earn Rs.1,000/- p.m by assisting her husband in the dairy farm. After the accident, she was unable to earn from the work and prayed the Court to grant compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against the respondent.
5. The brief averments made in the counter filed by the respondent
are as follows:
The respondent put the petitioner to prove the manner of accident, age and income of the petitioner and treatment taken by her in Vijaya Bhaskar Hospital, Guntur. The respondent contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and driver of the Auto bearing No.AP.7T.5641 and further, the driver of the R.T.C bus was not rash and negligent and is not responsible for the accident. On the other hand, it is specifically stated that the driver of the bus observed one jeep coming suddenly from Central School Gate, then the driver of the bus applied sudden brakes to stop hitting with the jeep, and at that time the Auto bearing No.AP.7T.5641, which was coming from Perecherla side in opposite direction, hit the front side of the bus and therefore, there is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. It is also contented that the petitioner sustained only simple injuries and her claim is high and excessive and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues and to substantiate the claim, the petitioner got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.42 on her behalf. On behalf of the respondent, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 got marked.
7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal having held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent-R.T.C.
bus bearing No.AP.10Z.4021 and also holding that the driver and owner of the Auto are not necessary parties awarded compensation of Rs.18,000/- along with interest at 9% p.a to the petitioner against the respondent. 8.
Being not satisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred the present appeal.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner argued that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries and the Tribunal granted
very less amount for the injuries sustained by her, likewise the Tribunal also not granted any compensation for pain and sufferings underwent at the time of treatment. It is also argued that the medical bills were not considered and the Tribunal also not considered Ex.A3-wound certificate issued by the doctor and finally prayed the Court to enhance the compensation.
10.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that no one were examined to prove the cash bills filed by the petitioner under Exs.A4 to A31, likewise prescriptions under Ex.A32 to A39 and X-rays under Exs.A40 to 42; that these documents were not proved by the petitioner by producing the evidence of the doctor; that further, the Tribunal rightly held that the petitioner also not proved that she took treatment in Vijaya Bhaskar Hosptial, Guntur; that the Tribunal rightly passed the award by granting just and reasonable compensation and prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal.
11. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the points which are to be decided in this appeal are as follows:
1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
2.
Whether the appellant/petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?
12. P O I N T S: After perusing the oral and documentary evidence, there is no dispute about the fact that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C bus bearing No.AP.10Z.4021. PW.1 is the injured. Her evidence was also not challenged in the cross-examination.
13. So far, the quantum of compensation is concerned, to prove the case, the petitioner filed cash bills under Exs.A4 to A31, prescriptions under Ex.A32 to A39 and X-rays under Exs.A40 to 42. As rightly pointed
out by the learned counsel for the respondent, these documents were not proved by the petitioner by producing the evidence of the doctor. Further, the Tribunal rightly held that the petitioner also not proved the fact that she took treatment in Vijaya Bhaskar Hosptial, Guntur. The petitioner in her evidence stated that she sustained fracture injury to her right leg and underwent operation. To prove this fact also, there is no evidence and she did not examine the doctor, who treated her. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the genuineness of cash bills and medical prescriptions were not proved and granted only Rs.10,000/- towards cost of operation, Rs.5,000/- towards medicines and Rs.3,000/- towards fracture injury. It is no doubt that the petitioner proved the wound certificate-Ex.
A3, wherein it shows that she sustained a fracture injury to her right tibia and said injury is grievous in nature. Considering the nature of the injury, the petitioner might have suffered some inconvenience due to the injury caused to her. Therefore, I am of the view that Rs.2,000/- shall be awarded to the petitioner for the pain and suffering and thus, the appellant is entitled for a total amount of Rs.20,000/-. 14.
In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant from Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. No order as to costs.
15. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
_____________ ANIS, J Date: 22.06.2015 sr