Accident claim - M.V.ACT - Medical report of Govt. Hospital and Medical certificate of Private Doctor not tallying with each other - No proof of permanent disability - Exorbitant claim with contradictory certificates not maintainable - Lower court awarded Rs.18,000/- Thus, a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the compound fracture and an amount of Rs.2,000/- for the simple injury and an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards loss of earnings, medical expenses, treatment and attendant charges and transport charges to make it Rs.30,000/- is just compensation to enhance from Rs.18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 7.5% per annum.=Kummari Srinivas....Petitioner Peddolla Prathap Reddy and another... Respondents = 2014 (Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10864

Accident claim - M.V.ACT - Medical report of Govt. Hospital and Medical certificate of Private Doctor not tallying with each other - No proof of permanent disability - Exorbitant claim with contradictory certificates not maintainable - Lower court awarded Rs.18,000/- Thus, a   compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the compound fracture and an amount of Rs.2,000/- for the simple injury and an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards loss of earnings, medical expenses, treatment and attendant charges and transport charges to make it Rs.30,000/- is just compensation to enhance from Rs.18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 7.5% per annum.=

The claimant injured of O.P.No.2025 of 2002 filed against the owner and insurer
of the crime auto AP 25 E 6302 with a claim of Rs.3,50,000/-, having been
aggrieved by the award granting compensation of Rs.18,000/- with interest at
7.5% per annum dated 02.12.2006, impugning the same preferred the appeal and the  
contentions in the grounds of appeal that the learned Chairman of the Tribunal
gravely erred in not considering the factum of grievous injuries sustained by
the claimant gives permanent disability that was deposed by private doctor P.W.2
and thereby could have adopted multiplier method and the amount of compensation 
granted is utterly low, hence to allow the appeal as prayed for in the claim
petition by granting said compensation.  =
 As per Ex.A1 FIR set the law in motion issued by the claimant
injured at about 5.00 p.m. on 17.06.2002 that on that day at about 11.00 a.m.
while he was proceeding from his field on his cycle, the crime tractor of first
respondent AP 25 E 6302 from behind while driving in rash and negligent manner
dashed against his cycle as a result he sustained fracture of right leg and
fracture on right shoulder.  Hence to take action against the said driver of the
tractor Latchanna.  
From the very FIR, the claim is some how appears speculative
undoubtedly it is for the reason that had there been a real fracture of the left
shoulder and at the accident at 11.00 a.m., his preparing and signing the report
cannot be believed at about 4 or 5.00 p.m. 
 It is not even statement reduced to writing from hospital intimation by police.  
As can be seen from the endorsement thereon of report presented was registered.  
No doubt, the police after
investigation filed Ex.A2 charge sheet against the driver of the crime tractor.
There is no mention of any damage to the cycle.  
Charge sheet also speaks as if
injuries to right leg and right shoulder.  So mechanically even the charge sheet
filed after obtaining Ex.A3 wound certificate issued by Government Hospital duty
doctor T.Narsinga Rao, which speaks there is a grievous injury of right leg both
bones fracture and another simple head injury which is an abrasion only, there
is no reference of any injury to right shoulder.  
Undisputedly the policy covers
the risk issued by the second respondent insurer for the first respondent's
crime tractor.  
P.W.2 Dr.Naidu Srinivasa Rao claims to be issued a wound
certificate from his private clinic Sri Aditya Orthopedic Nursing Home,
Nizamabad, showing the claimant was admitted on 17.06.2002 and operated on that  
day and discharged on 26.06.2002 for the fracture of tibia and nailing done.
The certificate no where mentions date, when it was issued.  But on the reverse
side of the said certificate marked as Ex.A5, there was prescription from
attendance on 26.07.2002 and 30.08.2002.  
On both dates it was mentioned as 
fracture uniting.  
The Government Hospital certificate Ex.A3 as referred supra
speaks the same was issued on 17.06.2002 after the injured himself came and 
admitted in the hospital and not brought by the police even and the time is in
the afternoon.  When such is the case, there is no possibility for P.W.2 to say
that on the same day the appellant-claimant was admitted again in the private
hospital and operated and treated as in-patient.  So, P.W.2's evidence is
nothing but false.  
It is unknown being a medical practitioner, how such a
certificate is issued without basis as if the injured-appellant was admitted in
the private hospital of him and treated as in-patient though the injured was
admitted in the Government Hospital where if X-ray found fracture of both bones
and of P.W.2 stated the fracture on one bone is not even correlating.  
No doubt
as can be seen from the above, the claim is from the beginning with
exaggerations as if there was a shoulder fracture and right leg fracture and
multiple injuries as per FIR and the same blindly reflected in the charge sheet
without referring to Ex.A3 wound certificate Government Doctor speaks of
compound fracture to right leg and with other abrasion over forehead, simple.
Thus, the compensation to be awarded is only for the compound fracture of both
bones of right leg and for the simple abrasion over forehead as described in
Ex.A3 wound certificate.  
The accident was of the year 2002 as detailed supra.
Thus, a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the compound fracture and an amount of
Rs.2,000/- for the simple injury and an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards loss of
earnings, medical expenses, treatment and attendant charges and transport
charges to make it Rs.30,000/- is just compensation to enhance from Rs.18,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 7.5% per annum.  Accordingly, point
No.1 is answered.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from
Rs.18,000/- to Rs.30,000/-.  There is no order as to costs in this appeal.


2014 (Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10864

THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO        

M.A.C.M.A.No.655 of 2007

03-02-2014

Kummari Srinivas....Petitioner

Peddolla Prathap Reddy and another... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy

Counsel for Respondents: Sri Narsi Reddy Teegala

<Gist :

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO          

M.A.C.M.A.No.655 of 2007

JUDGMENT:  


The claimant injured of O.P.No.2025 of 2002 filed against the owner and insurer
of the crime auto AP 25 E 6302 with a claim of Rs.3,50,000/-, having been
aggrieved by the award granting compensation of Rs.18,000/- with interest at
7.5% per annum dated 02.12.2006, impugning the same preferred the appeal and the  
contentions in the grounds of appeal that the learned Chairman of the Tribunal
gravely erred in not considering the factum of grievous injuries sustained by
the claimant gives permanent disability that was deposed by private doctor P.W.2
and thereby could have adopted multiplier method and the amount of compensation 
granted is utterly low, hence to allow the appeal as prayed for in the claim
petition by granting said compensation.  
It is the contention of the second
respondent-insurer, for first respondent served not put forth appearance, that
this case is outcome of exorbitant claim by setting up an accident and injuries
with no correlation to the FIR, wound certificate and evidence of P.W.2 a
different doctor though Ex.A3 wound certificate speaks treated by Government
Doctor hence the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the entire claim and but for
no cross-objections not to interfere, the appeal deserves dismissal with costs.
Perused the material on record.  The parties are being referred to as arrayed
before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.
Now, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:
1. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal of Rs.18,000/- is
utterly low and requires enhancement and if so what is just compensation in the
factual matrix that is entitled by the claimant-appellant?

2. To what result?

Point No.1: As per Ex.A1 FIR set the law in motion issued by the claimant
injured at about 5.00 p.m. on 17.06.2002 that on that day at about 11.00 a.m.
while he was proceeding from his field on his cycle, the crime tractor of first
respondent AP 25 E 6302 from behind while driving in rash and negligent manner
dashed against his cycle as a result he sustained fracture of right leg and
fracture on right shoulder.  Hence to take action against the said driver of the
tractor Latchanna.  
From the very FIR, the claim is some how appears speculative
undoubtedly it is for the reason that had there been a real fracture of the left
shoulder and at the accident at 11.00 a.m., his preparing and signing the report
cannot be believed at about 4 or 5.00 p.m. 
 It is not even statement reduced to writing from hospital intimation by police.  
As can be seen from the endorsement thereon of report presented was registered.  
No doubt, the police after
investigation filed Ex.A2 charge sheet against the driver of the crime tractor.
There is no mention of any damage to the cycle.  
Charge sheet also speaks as if
injuries to right leg and right shoulder.  So mechanically even the charge sheet
filed after obtaining Ex.A3 wound certificate issued by Government Hospital duty
doctor T.Narsinga Rao, which speaks there is a grievous injury of right leg both
bones fracture and another simple head injury which is an abrasion only, there
is no reference of any injury to right shoulder.  
Undisputedly the policy covers
the risk issued by the second respondent insurer for the first respondent's
crime tractor.  
P.W.2 Dr.Naidu Srinivasa Rao claims to be issued a wound
certificate from his private clinic Sri Aditya Orthopedic Nursing Home,
Nizamabad, showing the claimant was admitted on 17.06.2002 and operated on that  
day and discharged on 26.06.2002 for the fracture of tibia and nailing done.
The certificate no where mentions date, when it was issued.  But on the reverse
side of the said certificate marked as Ex.A5, there was prescription from
attendance on 26.07.2002 and 30.08.2002.  
On both dates it was mentioned as 
fracture uniting.  
The Government Hospital certificate Ex.A3 as referred supra
speaks the same was issued on 17.06.2002 after the injured himself came and 
admitted in the hospital and not brought by the police even and the time is in
the afternoon.  When such is the case, there is no possibility for P.W.2 to say
that on the same day the appellant-claimant was admitted again in the private
hospital and operated and treated as in-patient.  So, P.W.2's evidence is
nothing but false.  
It is unknown being a medical practitioner, how such a
certificate is issued without basis as if the injured-appellant was admitted in
the private hospital of him and treated as in-patient though the injured was
admitted in the Government Hospital where if X-ray found fracture of both bones
and of P.W.2 stated the fracture on one bone is not even correlating.  
No doubt
as can be seen from the above, the claim is from the beginning with
exaggerations as if there was a shoulder fracture and right leg fracture and
multiple injuries as per FIR and the same blindly reflected in the charge sheet
without referring to Ex.A3 wound certificate Government Doctor speaks of
compound fracture to right leg and with other abrasion over forehead, simple.
Thus, the compensation to be awarded is only for the compound fracture of both
bones of right leg and for the simple abrasion over forehead as described in
Ex.A3 wound certificate.  The accident was of the year 2002 as detailed supra.
Thus, a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the compound fracture and an amount of
Rs.2,000/- for the simple injury and an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards loss of
earnings, medical expenses, treatment and attendant charges and transport
charges to make it Rs.30,000/- is just compensation to enhance from Rs.18,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 7.5% per annum.  Accordingly, point
No.1 is answered.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from
Rs.18,000/- to Rs.30,000/-.  There is no order as to costs in this appeal.
 _________________________  
B.SIVA SANKARA RAO, J.    
3rd February 2014

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.