IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CMA.No. 3375OF 2002 Between: The Special Secretary to Government, Industrial Department, Govt.of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.` … Appellants V/s. Mohammed Sha Hyder Ali Pasha & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: GOVT. PLEADER FOR ARBITRATION Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Md.Rafiuddin Ahmed The Court made the following : (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CMA.No.3375 OF 2002 JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award and decree dated 30-11-2001 passed in OP.No.539 of 1998 by the II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, awarding compensation of Rs.2,96,000-00 with interest @12% p.a. from the date of the award till the date of realization as against the claim made for Rs.12,36,800/- on account the accident that occurred on 8-8-1997 at about 09:00 a.m. near Krishna Oberoi Hotel, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad while the claimant (injured) was proceeding on his scooter slowly and in the meantime one Ambassdor Car bearing No.ATY-1767 driven by its driver came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Due to the said impact, the claimant fell down and sustained serious head injuries, facial injuries and profuse bleeding from head, nostril and mouth. Thereafter, he was shifted to NIMS Hospital under unconscious state. From there he was brought to Apollo Hospital and admitted on 09-8-1997. The claimant sustained left temporal hemorrhage contusion in the brain. He had undergone craniotomy on 09-8-1997 and was treated in ICCU. He was under treatment in hospital till 12-10-1997. Subsequently it was found that there is loss of vision of right eye and there is a total blur. Both the legs of the claimant are not functioning normally and while walking the claimant has to drag the feet. The right hand also is partially not functioning. There is slurring in speech. He is not able to write or do any work with right hand. He has to be taken to expert Eye doctor at Shanker Netralaya at Madras for consultation and treatment for the loss of vision which may involve considerable expenses in future. On his forehead, he has wittered marks and scar and the same requires plastic surgery in future. Some of the injuries seems to be permanent in nature. The claimant reserves his right to claim future expenses on treatment, surgery and hospitalization etc. The claimant’s wife has to forego her service as Teacher and she is loosing her monthly income of Rs.2,600/- and still she is on leave to attend to the injured. 2. Before the Claims Tribunal, the third respondent filed its counter-affidavit and the same has been adopted by respondents 1 and 2 by filing a memo. It is averred that the claimant has already received an amount of Rs.2,04,310/- from the Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise. Further the claimant also claimed Rs.10,938/- towards first treatment at NIMS and the same is pending with the Additional Director, C.G.H.S., Hyderabad. The injured also claimed all benefits i.e., Earned Leave and Commuted Leave from his Department. It is contended that on 08-8-1997 the driver of the Ambassador Car was going to the residence of the Additional Director of Industries at about 09:00 a.m. At that time the driver of the vehicle stopped his vehicle as the Chief Minister’s vehicle with escort were going from opposite direction. After the Chief Minister’s vehicle passed away, the driver of the Ambassador car started the vehicle. Meanwhile, a scooterist came from a lane in between Krishna Oberoi and Holiday-Inn. There is a steep lane in between Krishna Oberoi and Holiday-Inn. By seeing the speed of the scooterist, he stopped his vehicle towards left side of the road. The scooterist overtook three cars and by seeing the respondent’s vehicle could not control his speed and applied sudden brakes. Due to the impact, he skidded and fell down on the road. There is no impact with the respondent’s car. The scooterist fell down about 10 to 15 feet distance from the respondent’s car. The alleged injuries to the claimant were caused only due to his rash and negligent driving. It is averred that the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation as the claimant is solely responsible for the said accident. The claimant is now hale and healthy and has joined his duty and hence there is no loss caused by the accident to the claimant. It is averred that the claimant having received entire amount and suppressed the real facts and filed the present claim only to gain illegally from the Department. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition with exemplary costs. 3. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed the following points for determination: 1) Whether the accident occurred out of the use of the motor vehicle of respondent No.1 ? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation ? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents ? 3) To what relief ? 4. To substantiate the case, the claimant examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.A1 to A4 and Ex.X-1 on his behalf. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the respondents. PW.1 is the injured. PW.2 is the wife of the injured. PW.3 is a Teacher in Meridian School, wherein the wife of the claimant worked. PWs.4 and 5 are the Medical Officers, who treated the injured claimant. RW-1 is the Assistant Director in the Commissionerate of Industries and RW-2 is the third respondent, who drove the vehicle belonging to the first respondent. 5. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,96,000-00 with interest @12% p.a. from the date of the award till the date of realization as against the claim made for Rs.12,36,800/- on account of the claimant met with an accident on 8-8-1997 at about 09:00 a.m. near Krishna Oberoi Hotel, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 1 and 2 in the claim-petition have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 6. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellants. On three occasion there was no representation on behalf of the respondents. 7. The learned Government Pleader for the appellants submitted that Ex.B1 copy of the letter dated 21-10-1998 in C.No.II/21/1/97-Medical was addressed to the Commissioner of Industries, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, by the Assistant Commissioner, Division-VII, Hyderabad informing that an amount of Rs.2,02,110-00 and Rs.2,200-00 were paid to the first respondent herein (claimant) Mohammed Sha Hyder Ali Pasha towards medical reimbursement and C.T. Scan of eye-orbit in addition to the claim for Rs.10,398-00 filed by him towards his treatment at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad following the accident and that he was granted 131 days of Earned Leave from 08-8-1997 to 16-12-1997 on medical grounds and 36 days of commuted leave on medical grounds from 17-12-1997 to 12-1-1998 and he reported to duty in his office on 22-1-1998. 8. Though the said Ex.B1 forms part of material on record and though the Claims Tribunal has observed that in view of Ex.B1 letter, the first respondent herein had received reimbursement of medical expenses to a tune of Rs.2,04,310-00 it held that the first respondent herein is entitled to Rs.62,952-00 towards medical expenses. Further, the Claims Tribunal failed to specifically state that the said amount was deducted from the total amount to be awarded towards medical expenses. Therefore, there is ambiguity and keeping the same in view the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. 9. In the facts and circumstances and in view of the said ambiguity, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter can be remanded back to the Claims Tribunal to specifically deal with and decide the aspect of ambiguity as to how much amount was to be awarded towards medical expenses and out of which the medical reimbursement of Rs.2,04,310-00 which has already been paid to the first respondent-claimant towards medical reimbursement. 10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and remanded back to the Claims Tribunal to specifically deal with and decide the aspect of ambiguity as indicated above. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE B.N.RAO, NALLA. 22-07-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 3375 OF 2002 Circulation No. 65 Date:22-7-2010 Computer No.43 Court Master: I s L