Thuthuru Muthai Vs. Adepu Ravinder and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1132251
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided OnFeb-28-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASADRAO
AppellantThuthuru Muthai
RespondentAdepu Ravinder and Others
Excerpt:
honourable sr.justice u.durga prasad rao m.a.c.m.a.no.426 of 2009 28-02-2014 thuthuru muthaiah..appellant adepu ravinder and others...respondents counsel for appellant: sr.a.prabhakar rao counsel for respondent no.2: sr.ramachandra reddy gadi counsel for respondent no.3: sr.p.phalguna rao head note: ?.citations: 2003 (5) ald162hon'ble sr.justice u. durga prasad rao m.a.c.m.a.no.426 of 2009 judgment: dissatisfied with the compensation granted in the award dated 27.09.2004 in o.p.no.669 of 2003 passed by the chairman, mact-cum-i additional district judge, warangal (for short 'the tribunal').the claimant preferred the instant appeal. 2) the factual matrix of the case is thus: a) the claimant is a resident of seetharampur village in warangal district. his case is that on the night of 24.12.2002, when himself and others were travelling in an auto bearing no.ap13v5074from mamnoor side to warangal and on the way when the auto reached fort warangal petrol pump, the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed a bajaj boxer vehicle and caused the accident. in the resultant accident, the claimant and two others fell on the road from the auto and suffered injuries. the claimant suffered fracture of 4th and 5th ribs, fractures to right metacarpus, dislocation of right shoulder, besides other injuries. immediately he was shifted to satya hospital, warangal, where he underwent inpatient treatment. dr.b.radha krishan treated him. while discharging him, the doctor advised him to take bed rest for three months. subsequently also the claimant underwent treatment and incurred medical expenditure. due to fracture to 4th and 5th ribs and fracture to right metacarpus, the claimant lost grip to his right hand. further due to dislocation of right shoulder, he is unable to lift heavy weights and unable to discharge agricultural operations. he suffered permanent disability. he claimed that the accident was occurred due to the fault of driver of the offending auto. on these pleas, he filed o.p.no.669 of 2003 against respondents 1 to 4, who are the owner, insurers of the offending auto and another and claimed rs.1,00,000/- as compensation under different heads mentioned in the o.p.b) respondents 1 and 4 remained ex parte. c) respondents 2 and 3/insurance company filed counter and opposed the claim by denying all the material averments of the claim petition. they urged to put the claimant in strict proof of his case. d) during trial, p.w.1 was examined and exs.a.1 to a.8 were marked on behalf of claimant. no evidence was adduced by respondents 2 and 3. e) a perusal of the award would show that so far as point no.1 is concerned, the tribunal having regard to the oral evidence of pw.1-complainant-cum-victim coupled with ex.a1-fir and ex.a3-charge sheet held that the accident was occurred due to fault of the auto driver. f) then quantum of compensation is concerned, the tribunal observed, though the claimant filed ex.a2-injury certificate and ex.a7-discharge card in proof of his injuries, however, in order to prove that those injuries are grievous the claimant has not filed x-ray report. the tribunal further observed that ex.a2- injury certificate also does not refer to any x-ray report. the case sheet was not summoned. it further observed that ex.a7-discharge card also does not show the basis for opining the fractures. on these observations, the tribunal treated all the five injuries of the claimant as simple injuries and accordingly granted compensation as follows: pain and suffering for five injuries rs.10,000/- medical expenses & attendant charges rs.5,000/- _______________ total compensation rs.15,000/- _______________ g) thus, the tribunal granted rs.15,000/- with proportionate costs and simple interest @ 9% p.a.from the date of petition till the date of realization. hence, the appeal by the claimant. 3) heard arguments of sr.a.prabhakar rao, learned counsel for appellant/claimant, sr.ramachandra reddy gadi, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and sr.p.phalguna rao, learned counsel for respondent no.3. respondents 1 and 4 are not necessary parties to the appeal. 4) learned counsel for appellant mainly argued that the tribunal erred in not believing the evidence of pw.1, who is the victim in the accident, in respect of the grievous nature of injuries suffered by him. learned counsel would submit that the evidence of pw.1 would clearly show that he suffered fracture of 4th and 5th ribs and also fracture of his wrist, for which he took treatment in satya hospital, warangal as an inpatient. learned counsel submitted that considering the grievous nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, compensation may be enhanced by allowing the appeal. 5) per contra, while supporting the award of the tribunal, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 argued that the claimant utterly failed to prove that he suffered fracture injuries. except filing wound certificate and discharge card, the claimant has not taken steps to examine the doctor who treated him to speak about the nature of injuries and treatment. further he failed to produce the x- ray reports about his alleged fracture injuries. for want of proper proof of injuries, the tribunal rightly held that the injuries are only simple injuries and accordingly granted just and reasonable compensation and there is nothing to interfere with the award. he thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6) in the light of the above rival arguments, the point for determination in this appeal is: ".whether the compensation granted by the tribunal is just and reasonable and needs any enhancement?.". 7) point: admittedly, in this case except filing ex.a2-injury certificate and ex.a7-discharge card issued by satya hospital, warangal, the claimant has not examined the doctor who treated him. further in exs.a2 and a7, there is no reference about taking x-ray to confirm the fracture injuries allegedly suffered by the claimant. in view of this infirmity, the tribunal declined to agree that the claimant suffered three fracture injuries. therefore, the tribunal considered all the five injuries as simple injuries and granted a lumpsum amount of rs.10,000/- i.e., @ rs.2,000/- per injury towards pain and suffering and a further sum of rs.5,000/- towards medical and attendant charges. it must be mentioned here that mere filing of the medical record is not sufficient. the party shall prove them by examining the concerned doctor. in united india insurance company limited, hyderabad v. mohd. khaj rasool sayyed @ mohd. khaja main shaik and another1, a learned judge of this court held thus: ".any document produced by any of the parties to the lis necessarily requires to be proved in the manner as provided under the evidence act. in most of these cases, the claimants are producing certificates and discharge cards etc., issued by the doctors and hospitals and also the bills in regard to the expenses incurred by them which require to be proved in the manner as provided under the evidence act. mere marking of documents through the claimants does not amount to proof of the said documents as held in the decision reported in 1971 s.c.1856. in most of these cases, no serious attempt is made to produce the necessary competent witnesses. it is urged on behalf of the claimants that once such certificates and the bills etc., issued by the doctors.it is not necessary to examine them. such contention cannot be accepted as there is no distinction between medical evidence or other evidence in a court of law as per the provisions of the evidence act.". so on a conspectus of facts, evidence and law concerning to the subject, i see no irregularity or illegality in the award passed by the tribunal. 8) in the result, this appeal is dismissed by confirming the award dated 27.09.2004 in o.p no.669 of 2003 passed by the tribunal. no order as to costs in the appeal. as a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. _________________________ u. durga prasad rao, j date: 28.02.2014
Judgment:

HONOURABLE Sr.JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.426 of 2009 28-02-2014 Thuthuru Muthaiah..Appellant Adepu Ravinder and others...Respondents Counsel for Appellant: Sr.A.Prabhakar Rao Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sr.Ramachandra Reddy Gadi Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sr.P.Phalguna Rao HEAD NOTE: ?.CITATIONS: 2003 (5) ALD162HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE U.

DURGA PRASAD RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.426 of 2009 JUDGMENT

: Dissatisfied with the compensation granted in the award dated 27.09.2004 in O.P.No.669 of 2003 passed by the Chairman, MACT-cum-I Additional District Judge, Warangal (for short 'the Tribunal').the claimant preferred the instant appeal.

2) The factual matrix of the case is thus: a) The claimant is a resident of Seetharampur Village in Warangal District.

His case is that on the night of 24.12.2002, when himself and others were travelling in an auto bearing No.AP13V5074from Mamnoor side to Warangal and on the way when the auto reached Fort Warangal petrol pump, the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed a Bajaj Boxer vehicle and caused the accident.

In the resultant accident, the claimant and two others fell on the road from the auto and suffered injuries.

The claimant suffered fracture of 4th and 5th ribs, fractures to right metacarpus, dislocation of right shoulder, besides other injuries.

Immediately he was shifted to Satya Hospital, Warangal, where he underwent inpatient treatment.

Dr.B.Radha Krishan treated him.

While discharging him, the doctor advised him to take bed rest for three months.

Subsequently also the claimant underwent treatment and incurred medical expenditure.

Due to fracture to 4th and 5th ribs and fracture to right metacarpus, the claimant lost grip to his right hand.

Further due to dislocation of right shoulder, he is unable to lift heavy weights and unable to discharge agricultural operations.

He suffered permanent disability.

He claimed that the accident was occurred due to the fault of driver of the offending auto.

On these pleas, he filed O.P.No.669 of 2003 against respondents 1 to 4, who are the owner, insurers of the offending auto and another and claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation under different heads mentioned in the O.P.b) Respondents 1 and 4 remained ex parte.

c) Respondents 2 and 3/insurance company filed counter and opposed the claim by denying all the material averments of the claim petition.

They urged to put the claimant in strict proof of his case.

d) During trial, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked on behalf of claimant.

No evidence was adduced by respondents 2 and 3.

e) A perusal of the award would show that so far as point No.1 is concerned, the Tribunal having regard to the oral evidence of PW.1-complainant-cum-victim coupled with Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A3-charge sheet held that the accident was occurred due to fault of the auto driver.

f) Then quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal observed, though the claimant filed Ex.A2-injury certificate and Ex.A7-discharge card in proof of his injuries, however, in order to prove that those injuries are grievous the claimant has not filed x-ray report.

The Tribunal further observed that Ex.A2- injury certificate also does not refer to any x-ray report.

The case sheet was not summoned.

It further observed that Ex.A7-discharge card also does not show the basis for opining the fractures.

On these observations, the Tribunal treated all the five injuries of the claimant as simple injuries and accordingly granted compensation as follows: Pain and suffering for five injuries Rs.10,000/- Medical expenses & attendant charges Rs.5,000/- _______________ Total compensation Rs.15,000/- _______________ g) Thus, the Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/- with proportionate costs and simple interest @ 9% p.a.from the date of petition till the date of realization.

Hence, the appeal by the claimant.

3) Heard arguments of Sr.A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for appellant/claimant, Sr.Ramachandra Reddy Gadi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sr.P.Phalguna Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

Respondents 1 and 4 are not necessary parties to the appeal.

4) Learned counsel for appellant mainly argued that the Tribunal erred in not believing the evidence of PW.1, who is the victim in the accident, in respect of the grievous nature of injuries suffered by him.

Learned counsel would submit that the evidence of PW.1 would clearly show that he suffered fracture of 4th and 5th ribs and also fracture of his wrist, for which he took treatment in Satya Hospital, Warangal as an inpatient.

Learned counsel submitted that considering the grievous nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, compensation may be enhanced by allowing the appeal.

5) Per contra, while supporting the award of the Tribunal, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 argued that the claimant utterly failed to prove that he suffered fracture injuries.

Except filing wound certificate and discharge card, the claimant has not taken steps to examine the doctor who treated him to speak about the nature of injuries and treatment.

Further he failed to produce the x- ray reports about his alleged fracture injuries.

For want of proper proof of injuries, the Tribunal rightly held that the injuries are only simple injuries and accordingly granted just and reasonable compensation and there is nothing to interfere with the award.

He thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6) In the light of the above rival arguments, the point for determination in this appeal is: ".Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and needs any enhancement?.".

7) POINT: Admittedly, in this case except filing Ex.A2-injury certificate and Ex.A7-discharge card issued by Satya Hospital, Warangal, the claimant has not examined the doctor who treated him.

Further in Exs.A2 and A7, there is no reference about taking x-ray to confirm the fracture injuries allegedly suffered by the claimant.

In view of this infirmity, the Tribunal declined to agree that the claimant suffered three fracture injuries.

Therefore, the Tribunal considered all the five injuries as simple injuries and granted a lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- i.e., @ Rs.2,000/- per injury towards pain and suffering and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards medical and attendant charges.

It must be mentioned here that mere filing of the medical record is not sufficient.

The party shall prove them by examining the concerned doctor.

In United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad v.

Mohd.

Khaj Rasool Sayyed @ Mohd.

Khaja Main Shaik and another1, a learned Judge of this Court held thus: ".Any document produced by any of the parties to the lis necessarily requires to be proved in the manner as provided under the Evidence Act.

In most of these cases, the claimants are producing certificates and discharge cards etc., issued by the doctors and hospitals and also the bills in regard to the expenses incurred by them which require to be proved in the manner as provided under the Evidence Act.

Mere marking of documents through the claimants does not amount to proof of the said documents as held in the decision reported in 1971 S.C.1856.

In most of these cases, no serious attempt is made to produce the necessary competent witnesses.

It is urged on behalf of the claimants that once such certificates and the bills etc., issued by the doctORS.it is not necessary to examine them.

Such contention cannot be accepted as there is no distinction between medical evidence or other evidence in a Court of law as per the provisions of the Evidence Act.".

So on a conspectus of facts, evidence and law concerning to the subject, I see no irregularity or illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal.

8) In the result, this appeal is dismissed by confirming the award dated 27.09.2004 in O.P No.669 of 2003 passed by the Tribunal.

No order as to costs in the appeal.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.

_________________________ U.

DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date: 28.02.2014