IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO : 1312 of 2002 (Appeal under Section ____ against the order/decree in OP no. : 369 of 1993 dated 18/09/2095 on the file of the court of theI Additional District Judge, Karimnagar) Between: Namsani Mallaiah alias Mallesham S/o. Rajamallu R/o. Venkateswarapalli, V/o. Mutharam Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Ahmed Ahsanual Raheman S/o. Gyasuddin R/o. H.No. 2-4-109/2, Sajidpura, Siddipeta, Medak District. 2 Mohd. Kaleem S/o. Mohd. Fathe Mohammed R/o. H.No. 2-4-109/2, Sajidpura, Siddipeta, Medak District. 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Sangareddy Branch, Medak District. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Sangareddy Branch, Medak District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.I.AGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.BRIZ MOHAN SINGH The Court delivered the following JUDGEMENT: PSR, J. C.M.A.No. 1312 of 2002 Judgment This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar in O.P.No. 369 of 1993. The appellant is the petitioner. 2. The facts are as follows: As per the averments made in the petition on 16-11-1992 at about 3.00 PM, near Ramu Photo Studio, while the petitioner was going on TVS Moped, lorry bearing No. ADT-7933 came in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner causing injuries to him. The petitioner sustained fracture of left collar bone, left leg and other injuries allover his body. He was admitted in the District Head quarters Hospital, Karimnagar, where he was treated and skin grafting was also done. The left leg of the petitioner was shortened, which he cannot bend. He under went surgery. A case in Cr.No.223 of 1992 was registered against the second respondent under section 338 IPC. The second respondent, who is the driver of the lorry, in C.C.No. 169 of 1993 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, pleaded guilty. The petitioner, in all, claimed compensation of Rs.1.00 Lakh. The vehicle is insured with the third respondent. 3. Respondent No.3 filed counter contending that the petitioner is put to strict proof that lorry bearing No.ADT-933 is insured with it; the said vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and the petitioner is also put to strict proof of several other contentions raised by him. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for tral: 1) Whether the accident which occurred on 16—11—1992 at 3.00 PM near the Court building at Karimnagar resulting injuries to the petitioner was due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. ADT-7922 by the first respondent? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 5. On behalf of the petitioner PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs A-1 to A-9 were marked. Out of them, Ex A-1 is the FIR; Ex A-2 is the Medical Certificate; Ex A-3 is the CC of the Judgment in the criminal case; Ex A-4 is the Case diary; Exs A-5 to A-8 are the X-Rays of the petitioner and Ex A-9 is the Certificate issued by PW-3. 6. On the basis of the above material on record, the trial court dismissed the claim petition for the reason that there is discrepancy in the lorry number – whether it is “7922 or 7933”. 7. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, the petitioner filed the present appeal. 8. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation at all and in case, he is found to be entitled for compensation, the question of quantum and from which of the respondents. 8. As already referred, as per the claim petition, the lorry number is mentioned as ADT-7933. In his evidence PW-1 stated that lorry number is ADT-7933. But in Ex A-1 it is mentioned as ADT-7922. In Ex A-3, certified copy of the judgment in C.C.No. 169 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, there is no reference to the number of the vehicle, at all. As such it is not of any use. In Ex B-1 the Insurance Policy, the vehicle number is mentioned as ADT-7922. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by mistake, the lorry number is wrongly mentioned by the petitioner and for that reason the petitioner cannot be deprived of the compensation. No doubt, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, may be, on account of some mistake or negligence of the petitioner the registration number of the lorry might have been wrongly mentioned for that reason, the petitioner can not be deprived of compensation. 10. The question would be whether compensation can be granted at all on account of the lorry number being wrongly mentioned. The name of the first Respondent is mentioned as - Ahmed Ahsanul Raheem son of Gyasuddin. In Ex B-1 policy, the name of the insured is mentioned as A.R. Rahaman s/o Gayasuddin Thus, it is clear that the first respondent is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. ADT-7922. In the FIR the number of the vehicle is clearly mentioned as ADT- 7922. As already referred to, in the petition only the lorry number is mentioned as ADT-7933. In the counter filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the lorry the vehicle number is mentioned as ADT-7922. It is not clear as to how the vehicle number is mentioned as ADT-7933 in the petition and in the evidence of PW-1. Obviously, it is the negligence of the counsel that filed the claim petition and conducted the case. For that reason, the petitioner cannot be punished. Though in Ex A-3, the judgment in the calendar case, reference to the vehicle number is not there, in the counter filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 the vehicle number is mentioned as ADT- 7922. Thus it can be accepted that the vehicle covered under Ex B-1 is only ADT-7922 only, as Cr.No.223 of 1992, referred to in the judgment, tallies with the crime number mentioned in Ex A-1. 11. The learned trial judge dismissed the claim petition mainly for the reason that the claim petition is filed for the vehicle No. ADT-7933 and as such there is no privity of contract. The finding of the trial court, with regard to this aspect is, in fact, not clear. As discussed above, the fact remains that Ex A-1 shows the vehicle number as ADT-7922; Ex B-1 the insurance policy shows the vehicle number as ADT-7922 and the first respondent himself is the owner of the vehicle ADT-7922 for which the policy Ex B-1 was issued. As such it cannot be said that there is no privity of contract. The entire problem has come on account of the negligence of the counsel that conducted the proceedings in the trial court. In these circumstances, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for compensation from the respondents. 12. Now, the question is with regard to the quantum. Skin grafting was done to the petitioner. There was shortening of the leg, apart from some other disability. PW-3 is a private doctor and he is not the doctor that treated the petitioner at the Government Hospital. The evidence of PW-3 is that, that he examined the petitioner after his treatment at Government Hospital. He examined Ex A-4 case sheet of the petitioner and Ex A-5 and A-6 are the X-Rays taken at the Government Hospital, before treatment. He again took X-Ray of Left knee joint on two occasions. The petitioner developed mal-union of the knee joint and there by there was restriction in the left knee movement. He suffered 30% disability in walking. As per Ex A-2 certificate issued by the Government Hospital, the petitioner suffered a laceration on the left thigh. It is shown as grievous and there was fracture of left clavical and there were other injuries. Ex A-4 the case sheet of the Government Hospital shows that the petitioner suffered fracture of left clavical and another fracture. It is not clear; but it looks as thigh. Thus the petitioner suffered two fractures. He was admitted into the government hospital on 16.11.1992 and discharged on 1.2.1993. Thus he was in the hospital for (78) days. PW-1 also took treatment in the Government Hospital for more than two months. Thus, though much weight need not be given to the evidence of PW-3, the private medical practitioner, there is sufficient evidence to show that the petitioner suffered two fractures and he was in the Government Hospital for more than two months. Either in the petition or in his evidence as PW-1, the petitioner did not say as to what was the amount spent by him for treatment. As, for most of the time, the petitioner took treatment in the Government Hospital, he might have not spent substantial money for treatment and as the accident occurred in the year 1992, he might have spent about Rs.10,000-00 towards incidental expenditure, while undergoing treatment at Government Hospital. As such he can be awarded an amount of Rs.10,000.00 towards extra nourishment etc.; Rs.10,000.00 towards pain and suffering and another sum of Rs.30,000.00 towards the disability and loss of earning during the period of treatment. According to the petitioner he was earning Rs.2,000-00 per month – that itself might be exaggerated. Considering all the circumstances the compensation of Rs.50,000-00 would be appropriate, in view of my above finding. 13. In the result the appeal is allowed. The petitioner is granted an amount Rs.50,000-00 (Rs.Fifty thousands only) towards compensation payable by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The petitioner is entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the respondents are not liable to pay any costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. June 21, 2010. *BVS