1 VS,J MACMA_178_2019 APHC010086402019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 178/2019 Between: Sk Karimulla ...APPELLANT AND Sanamsetty Durga Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V HEMANTH KUMAR 2. MUTEVI MURALIKRISHNA 3. The Court made the following: 2 VS,J MACMA_178_2019 JUDGMENT:- The appellant/claimant filed the present appeal seeking enhancement in M.V.O.P.No.293 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, dated 14.02.2018 whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,62,200/-, as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by Shaik Karimulla/appellant/claimant in a motor accident that occurred on 26.03.2013. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. The 1st respondent is the owner, 2nd respondent is the insurer and 5th respondent is the driver of the goods auto bearing registration No.AP 07 TA 3475. The 3rd respondent is the owner-cum-driver and the 4th respondent is the insurer of the auto bearing No.AP 27 TU 9003. 3. The claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 455 and 476 of A.P.M.V. Rules, seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor accident that occurred on 26.03.2013 at about 10.00 a.m., near Petlurivaripalem, Narasaraopet to Vinukonda road, Narasaraopet Rural Mandal. On the date of incident, at about 10.00 a.m., while the petitioner and others were proceeding in the auto bearing No.AP 27 TU 9003 to Narasaraopet, the driver of the goods auto bearing No.AP 07 TA 3475 dashed the auto in which the petitioner was travelling, near Petlurivaripalem on Narasaraopet to Vinukonda road. As a result of the said collision, the petitioner sustained compound fracture of distal end of humerus involving elbow joint on right side and compound and comminuted fracture of both radius and ulna on right side. Subsequently, he was shifted to Government hospital, Narasaropet and 3 VS,J MACMA_178_2019 thereafter, he was shifted to G.B.R. Super Specialty hospital, Palnadu road, Narasaraopet where he underwent treatment for forty (40) days. There, he underwent major surgery and on 05.05.2014, he was again admitted in the said hospital for removal of implants. A case was registered in Crime No.49 of 2013 against the driver of the goods auto bearing no.AP-07-TA-3475. 4. While the 1st, 3rd and 5th respondents remained ex parte, the 2nd respondent/Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (insurer of the goods auto bearing No.AP 07 TA 3475), has filed a counter denying the averments of the claim petition and the validity of the driving license of the 5th respondent. It was further contended that the 4th respondent alone is responsible for the accident as he drove the auto, which is overloaded with passengers, in a rash and negligent manner and further contended that the 5th respondent has not driven the goods auto in a rash and negligent manner. 5. The 4th respondent/National Insurance Company Limited (insurer of the auto bearing No.AP 27 TU 9003), has also filed a written statement denying the averments made by the petitioner and the validity of the driving license of the 3rd respondent. It is further contended that as the accident occurred due to negligence of the 5th respondent, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 alone are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1) Whether the petitioner Shaik Karimulla, S/o.Yusuf received injuries in the accident on 26.03.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of goods auto bearing No.AP 16 TA 3475 and auto bearing No.AP 27 TU 9003? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount, and against whom? 4 VS,J MACMA_178_2019 3) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial, in support of his case, the petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Ex.B1 was marked. Exs.X1 and X2 were marked through P.W.2 and Exs.X3 to X5 were marked through R.W.2. 8. The Tribunal, relying upon the oral evidence adduced by P.W.1 and R.W.1, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the auto drivers i.e. respondents Nos.3 and 5, which resulted in grievous injuries to the petitioner. Since the petitioner is a third party to the policy issued by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent, along with respondent Nos.3 and 4, were made liable to pay compensation to the petitioners jointly and severally. 9. The petitioner relied upon the disability certificate (Ex.A4) which shows that the petitioner has sustained disability of 64% due to „post traumatic amputation‟. But, relying upon the deposition of P.W.2 – doctor, the Tribunal has fixed the disability of the petitioner as 10%. Fixing the daily income of the petitioner as Rs.150/- and annual income as Rs.54,000/-, the Tribunal has applied multiplier “18” as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1, as the petitioner was aged about 20 years, thus, the amount that the petitioner is eligible to be paid was computed as Rs.97,200/- towards 10% of the disability (Rs.54,000/- X 18 X 10%). Further, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner 1 2009 ACJ 1298(SC) 5 VS,J MACMA_178_2019 towards conveyance, extra nourishment and attendant charges and an amount of Rs.50,000/- was awarded under the heads of pain and suffering and loss of amenities in life. In total, the amount awarded to the petitioner by the Tribunal is Rs.1,62,200/-. Seeking enhancement of the same, the present appeal is filed. 10. Heard Mr. K. Siva Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. V. Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri. M. Murali Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has erred in considering the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.4,500/- only, though, he earns Rs.10,500/-. He further contends that the Tribunal ought to have considered the percentage of disability of the petitioner as 30% as adduced by the doctor (P.W.2) in his evidence but should not have fixed the percentage of disability as 10%. Though the petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal has collectively awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- under both the heads aforesaid. As such, he requests this Court to enhance the amount awarded by the Tribunal and further to allow the appeal. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4 contended that the petitioner, with a fraudulent intention, has filed Ex.A4 which is the disability certificate issued by Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Ongole as per which, the disability sustained by the petitioner is mentioned as 64% due to „post traumatic amputation‟. But, the petitioner, in his cross-examination has admitted the 6 VS,J MACMA_178_2019 fact that his hand was not amputated. This fact was also supported by P.W.2, who treated the petitioner, who deposed in his evidence that there is deformity of right upper arm of the petitioner due to loss of muscle and he has assessed the percentage of disability as 30%. Denying the contention of learned counsel for the appellant, that the petitioner earns Rs.350/- per day, learned counsel for the respondents argued that there is no material placed on record to establish his earnings. Tribunal, after considering all the grounds raised by the petitioner and after taking into account the oral submissions made by both the parties, has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.1,62,200/- and that the same need not be interfere by this Court. Hence requested to dismiss the appeal. 13. It is not in dispute that the accident had occurred on 26.03.2013 at 10.00 a.m., near Petlurivaripalem, Narasaraopet to Vinukonda road, Narasaraopet. The petitioner, in the claim petition, has claimed a total compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, out of which he claimed Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses, conveyance, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Further, he claimed Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and a further sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities. He also claimed Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability and Rs.4,00,000/-, towards loss of earnings and earning power. 14. During the course of trial, the petitioner deposed that he is a holder of Arogyasri card, in such a case, he might have undertaken treatment under Arogyasri Scheme, free of cost. In such circumstances, the question of claiming Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses does not arise. Even otherwise, the petitioner failed to produce medical bills in proof of his claim. Taking into account the foregoing facts, the tribunal has appropriately denied to award amount for medical expenses, but, 7 VS,J MACMA_178_2019 Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards conveyance, extra nourishment and attendant charges, which need not be interfered with. Further, Rs.50,000/- each was claimed by the petitioner towards pain and suffering; and towards loss of amenities. However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- altogether under both the heads of pain and suffering and loss of amenities in life. This Court finds no wrong in awarding the said amount. 15. During the course of trial, the petitioner herein was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked through him. It can be seen that Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of FIR in crime No.49 of 2013 of Narasaraopet Rural Police station under Sections 337 and 338 IPC and Ex.A.2 is the charge sheet filed against the 5th respondent before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet. Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of wound certificate which states that the petitioner received compound fracture of distal end of humerus involving elbow joint on right side and compound and comminuted fracture of both radius and ulna on right side. Ex.A.4 is the disability certificate issued by Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Ongole, in favour of the petitioner. 16. The facts relating to Exs.A1 to A3 are not in dispute. It is mentioned in Ex.A4 that the disability sustained by the petitioner is 64% due to „post traumatic amputation‟. But, it can be seen from the evidence of P.W.1 that his right hand was not amputated, but he is unable to lift anything with his right hand as it is badly affected. Even P.W.2, who is the doctor that has treated the petitioner, deposed that due to deformity in his right upper arm, his disability can be assessed at 30%. When the right hand of the petitioner is not amputated, as admitted by him and when the disability of the petitioner was assessed as 30% by P.W.2 himself, this 8 VS,J MACMA_178_2019 Court is unable to understand as to why the petitioner got marked Ex.A4, however, it seems that the petitioner, with a malafide intention to claim more amount than he is genuinely entitled has filed the said certificate. The Tribunal, having analyzed the entire evidence available on record and after assessing the percentage of disability of the petitioner as 10%, has rightly awarded the compensation amount of Rs.1,62,200/-, as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-. As such, the award passed by the Tribunal was on reasonable basis and is sustainable under law, which needs no interference. 17. Hence, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:05.05.2025. Gss