IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4532 of 2003 Between: Kummari Maisaiah & 4 others .. Appellants AND N. Shankaraiah & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4532 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.918 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 18.06.2003. 2. Kummari Maisaiah was dashed against by ambassador car No.AP 10D 45 on 02.01.2001 at about 6.30 p.m. at Jangampalli bus stand and the rash and negligent act of the car driver resulted in fractures and other injuries to Maisaiah. He claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under various heads from the owner and insurer of the ambassador car and on the death of Maisaiah on 17.06.2001, his wife and three sons came on record as his legal representatives. 3. While the owner of the car remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer denied the claims of the claimants and desired the claim to be negatived. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the rash and negligent driving of the ambassador car resulting in the accident and the death of Maisaiah, the entitlement of the legal representatives to compensation and the relief to be granted. 5. During the course of enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 and B-1 were marked. 6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly concluding from the eye witness account of P.W.2, Ex.A-1-First Information Report and Ex.A-2-Charge Sheet that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the ambassador car driver. However, the death of Maisaiah on 17.06.2001 was considered by the Tribunal to be not linked with the accident that occurred on 02.01.2001, as there was no evidence on record to show that the death was due to the two fractures suffered in the accident. The Tribunal, while concluding that Maisaiah suffered injuries in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the ambassador car driver, considered the legal heirs of Maisaiah to be not entitled to any compensation as the death was not due to the injuries sustained in the accident. 7. The dismissal of the claim without costs for that reason led the legal representatives of the deceased original claimant prefer the present appeal contending that the claim for compensation for the injuries suffered due to the accident ought to have been upheld in favour of the legal heirs who were brought on record. 8. Sri J.P. Srikanth, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned standing counsel for the second respondent/insurer are heard and the first respondent/owner of the ambassador car remained unrepresented before this Court. 9. The conclusion of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the ambassador car driver resulting in grievous injuries to the deceased Maisaiah has become final in the absence of any challenge by any of the parties. It is also true that the evidence on record did not establish in any manner that the death of Maisaiah on 17.06.2001 was due to the consequences of the injuries suffered in the accident on 02.01.2001. Had Maisaiah been alive, there is absolutely no doubt that he would have been entitled to just and adequate compensation from both the respondents jointly and severally for the injuries suffered in the accident and their consequences, but the Tribunal negatived the continuance of the claim by the legal representatives of the deceased Maisaiah for compensation for the personal injuries suffered by Maisaiah. 10. The legal position in this regard has been exhaustively dealt with by a learned Judge of this Court in S. VYKUNTAM (DIED PER L.RS.) VS. G. NARAYANA AND OTHERS[1]. The learned Judge considered an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in N.R. PATEL & CO. VS. T. APARNA[2] in which the death was attributed to the injuries sustained in the accident itself. Referring to the other decisions on the aspect, the learned Judge considered that if the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, also relates to the estate of the deceased, the action survives on the death of the claimant and passes over to his legal representatives. The learned Judge concluded that the legal representatives of the injured, even after the death of the injured during the pendency of the proceedings, are entitled to the specified expenditure as loss of estate. Loss of estate was stated in the earlier decisions to include transport charges, medical expenses and extra nourishment, but not future loss of earnings and pain and suffering. 11. The claim continued by the wife and three sons of Maisaiah would not have failed as a whole on the principles laid down by the learned Judge and would have been admissible at least to the limited extent indicated in the above decision. 12. Ex.A-1-First Information Report mentioned that Maisaiah suffered injuries in the accident and Ex.A-2-Charge Sheet specified that Maisaiah sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Ex.A-3-Injury Certificate showed that there was fracture at the surgical neck of the left humerus and a fracture of the mandible and two injuries were described as grievous. Ex.A-4- Discharge Card showed Maisaiah to have been treated as an inpatient between 03.01.2000 and 10.01.2000 and Ex.A-5-Death Certificate showed that he ultimately died on 17.06.2001. The oral evidence of P.W.2 was about his witnessing the accident and P.W.2 made no reference to the details of the grievous injuries suffered by Maisaiah. P.W.1, the wife of Maisaiah, claimed that for the two fractures and other multiple injuries, Maisaiah was treated at the Government Hospital, Kamareddy between 03.01.2000 and 10.01.2000 and later, he took treatment at the private hospital also. She claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a labourer and that she had to spend Rs.25,000/- towards treatment and medicines. While there was no evidence on behalf of the respondents, there were no specific denials also about the injuries suffered in the accident or the treatment taken in the counter and additional counter filed by the second respondent. 13. The claimant claimed Rs.2,000/- towards transport, Rs.20,000/- towards extra nourishment and medicines, Rs.2,000/- towards damage to clothing and articles, apart from Rs.12,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.39,000/- towards continuing permanent disability. If Maisaiah suffered two fractures and other simple injuries and was treated as an inpatient from 03.01.2001 to 10.01.2001 and was also advised to continue to take medicines as prescribed in Ex.A-4-Discharge Card and was further advised further consultation, he would have undoubtedly incurred much expenses towards transport, attendant charges, inevitable expenses for the purchase of medicines, extra nourishment, etc., and given the nature of the injuries, he would have been unable to attend to his normal avocation at least for a period of six to eight weeks during which period also, he would have spent money towards medicines, extra nourishment and attendant charges, etc. Given the nature of the injuries and the accident, such expenses can be quantified at about Rs.20,000/- in which, of course, an element of guess and estimate are inevitable. The legal representatives of Maisaiah are entitled to such damages towards transport, medical expenses, extra nourishment, etc., as part of the loss to the estate though they may not be entitled to any compensation for any pain and suffering or any disability. During the period of disablement, Maisaiah would have been deprived of his normal earnings as a labourer which can be assessed at about Rs.5,000/- with reference to the minimum wages payable to the unskilled labourers at about the relevant time and, thus, to an extent of a sum of Rs.25,000/-, the appellants can continue to maintain their claim against both the respondents jointly and severally. 14. On such compensation of Rs.25,000/-, interest can be awarded at 6% per annum in view of the length of time for which the respondents have to pay such interest and proportionate costs shall also follow suit. Therefore, the total rejection of the claim due to the death of Maisaiah cannot be sustained and though the death was not proved to be the result of the consequences suffered by Maisaiah due to the injuries in the accident, the legal representatives would be entitled to compensation to the extent indicated above. 15. In the result, the award, dated 18.06.2003, in O.P.No.918 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is set aside and the said O.P.No.918 of 2001 is allowed in part by granting a compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs against both the respondents jointly and severally to be shared equally between the four legal representatives of the deceased K. Maisaiah. 16. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, accordingly, in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24th March, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4532 of 2003 Date: 24th March, 2011 KL [1] 2008 ACJ 40 [2] 2006 ACJ 2719 (AP)