HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.359 of 2008 Date: 17-6-2011 Between B.Balamma … Appellant/Petitioner and Sri Lotus Chick Foods Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and another … Respondents/Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.359 of 2008 Judgment: Having been aggrieved by the order and decree dated 28-9-2007 in O.P.No.302 of 2004 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. 2. The appellant herein is the petitioner in O.P.No.302 of 2004. She filed the petition claiming compensation of Rs.80,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident on 18-3-2004. The tribunal below while evaluating the evidence on record dismissed the petition on the ground that the evidence of P.W.1 does not inspire confidence to come to the conclusion that she sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. Being aggrieved with the said finding, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the petitioner mainly urging that the tribunal below ought to have seen that under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the claimants need not prove the rashness and negligence in the accident for claiming compensation and the tribunal below failed to see Ex.A-11 certified copy of the order in C.C.No.109 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapeta, wherein the driver of the offending vehicle admitted and pleaded his guilty and was convicted for the offence under Section 338 I.P.C.. 3. Now, the point for consideration is -- whether the order of the tribunal below is sustainable ? 4. Point:- The injured Smt. B.Balamma, aged about 45 years as P.W.1 deposed that she sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 18-3-2004 while she was coming to the house in the outskirts of Gundrampally village on National Highway No.9. According to her, the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP9AP-9947. Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of First Information Report, Ex.A-2 is the Medical Certificate issued by the Doctors Multi Speciality Hospital, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, Ex.A-3 is the certified copy of charge-sheet and Ex.A-11 is the certified copy of the order in C.C.No.109 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet. 5. As seen from Ex.A-1 First Information Report, the accident was occurred on 18-3-2004 at about 9 p.m. The complaint was lodged in the police station in the early hours of 19-3-2004. Admittedly, the complaint was lodged by the son of the petitioner, by name Srinivas. The recitals of the complaint read that on 18-3-2004 at about 9 p.m., his mother met with an accident while she was proceeding near the outskirts of Gundrampally village. The factum of sustaining injuries by P.W.1 was admitted and the factum of accident was also admitted. The tribunal below while interpreting the minor discrepancy regarding the time and date of accident dismissed the petition. 6. In the present case on hand, the documentary evidence clearly reads that the accident was occurred at about 9 p.m., on 18-3- 2004 followed by the report on the early hours of 19-3-2004. P.W.1 was admitted in the Doctors Multi Speciality Hospital, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad soon after the accident i.e., in the early hours of 19-3- 2004. On a combined reading of Exs.A-1 and A-2, it is proved that P.W.1 sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on the night of 18-3- 2004. The driver of the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP9AP- 9947 was convicted in C.C.No.109 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet for causing the accident. P.W.1 sustained injuries as per Ex.A-11 certified copy of the order in C.C.No.109 of 2004. 7. Therefore, in view of the above positive documentary evidence it is amply proved that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP9AP-9947, which was validly insured under policy Ex.A-10 with the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. No rebuttal evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the finding of the tribunal below that the petitioner failed to establish that she sustained injuries in a road traffic accident is not sustainable and the same is set aside. 8. Regarding the quantum of compensation, as per Ex.A-2 Wound Certificate the injured P.W.1 was examined on 19-3-2004 at 12.45 a.m., and the same is evidenced by Ex.A-4 discharge summary. According to it, the petitioner was operated on 21-3-2004 and was discharged on 14-4-2004. Ex.A-5 case sheet relates to P.W.1. P.W.4 Dr. Durga Prasad, Orthopedic Surgeon was examined to prove the injuries on P.W.1. According to him, he treated the petitioner on 19-3-2004 for the following injuries: (1) Fracture of left leg with compound fracture grade-2 right leg grade-1 compound fracture, 5 x 3 x 2 cm deep blasted wound upper 1/3rd of left leg. (2) Punctured wound over middle 1/3rd of right leg1 x 1 cm. (3) left shoulder injuries and left mandible. He stated that plate was inserted in the right leg. He further stated that Dr. Pandu and and Dr. Shyam Sunder, General Physician had seen the patient. He certified that the petitioner suffered 6 to 8 months for the fractures to become normal walking. He also certified that Ex.A-5 case sheet contained observations regarding the injuries and asserted that P.W.1 has to incur an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards removal of rod from the right leg. Ex.A-7 is a bunch of medical bills 36 in number issued by the hospital where the petitioner was treated. 9. Therefore, the documentary evidence Exs.A-4 to A-9 clinchingly proved that P.W.1 sustained compound fractures and deep cut injuries and she was in-patient for about one month while undergoing treatment. Admittedly, the injured is a labourer, aged about 45 years. Ex.A-8 is two photos evidencing the injuries found on the body of the injured. Therefore, viewed from any angle, granting an amount of Rs.30,000/- for the fracture of left leg with compound fracture of grade-2 right leg grade-1 compound fracture etc., as noted in the wound certificate Ex.A-2 and Rs.10,000/- towards punctured wound over middle 1/3rd of right leg, left shoulder and left mandible is just and reasonable. As noted already, the petitioner required another Rs.20,000/- towards removal of the rod from the right leg. Therefore, granting an amount of Rs.15,000/- on that score is just and reasonable. Accordingly, the said sum is granted. As per Ex.A-7 bunch of medical bills 36 in number, the petitioner claimed compensation for the expenditure towards treatment. Therefore, granting another amount of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses is just and necessary, besides granting Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) is granted towards compensation to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. 10. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed accordingly and the impugned order passed by the tribunal below is set aside. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 17th June, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.359 of 2008 (P.D. Judgment) 17th June, 2011.