MV OP 248 of 2018 Injury

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

[PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE] AT KHAMMAM

PRESENT: SRI B.S.JAG JEEVAN KUMAR, B.Sc., LL.M.,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

Wednesday, January 10, 2024

MV OP No.248 of 2018
BETWEEN:
Gudla Prasad Reddy
… Petitioner
AND
1) M/s Krishnaveni Travels, represented by its Proprietor P.Ramakrishna
(died, per LRs, respondent Nos.3 to 5)
2) United India Insurance Company Limited
3) Punnam Krishnaveni
4) Punnam Nirajakshi
5) Punnam Pushyami
Respondents 4 and 5 being minors are represented by their mother,
respondent No.3
Respondents 3 to 5 are added as per the order dated 23.1.2023 in IA No.6
of 2023
… Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner : Sri M.Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate

Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Sri Y.Subramanyam, Advocate
Counsel for Respondent Nos 3 to 5 : Sri M.Kannamba, Advocate

This petition coming on 16.10.2023 for final hearing; upon hearing the
counsel on record and considering the material on record and having stood
over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal has made the following:

ORDER

The petitioner claims compensation of Rs.12 lakh under Section 166 of

Jan 10 1/13 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 248 of 2018 Injury

the Motor Vehicles Act from the owner and the insurer of car No.AP20TV2436

for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 17.6.2016 at

06.30 hours at Madhavaraopet village.

2. The 1st respondent died and his legal representatives are brought on

record as respondent Nos.3 to 5.

3. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of the accident, Peddada

Ganapathi Rao drove the car in rash and negligent manner and dashed a road

side tree, due to which the petitioner who was sitting beside the driver’s seat

sustained injuries. The police of Yetapaka registered a case in Crime No.41 of

2016 under Section 338 IPC against the said car driver. Immediately after the

accident, he was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Bhadrachalam. After

first aid there, he was shifted to KIMS, Secunderabad. After tests, he was

diagnosed to have right grade II open D/E femur segmental comminuted

segmental fracture with articular extention. Surgery ORIF with medtronics 11

hole right distal femur LCP and cement spacer insertion, was done. He was

treated as inpatient for 20 days. At the time of discharge, he was advised to

visit the hospital twice in a month for 3 months for further treatment and was

also advised to take complete bed rest. He continued follow up treatment.

He spent Rs.6 lakh for his treatment and other expenses. Still he has to spend

Rs.1,00,000/- for removal of the implants. He was working as Assistant

Project Manager, IKP, Bhadrachalam and was earning Rs.26,000/- per month.

Jan 10 2/13 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 248 of 2018 Injury

He lost his salary for 6 months, i.e., Rs.1,56,000/-. Due to the above said

fractures, he was unable to move from the bed and was unable to squat, stand

and walk without any assistance. He is getting headache. Despite the

treatment and physiotherapy, he got disability. His right leg became

shortened and is getting pain. Therefore, the respondents are, jointly and

severally, liable to pay him the compensation claimed.

4. The 1st respondent denied the case of the petitioner and pleaded that

as the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Peddada

Ganapathi Rao and as the car was insured with the 2 nd respondent, the

petitioner is not entitled to claim any compensation from it.

5. Respondent nos.3 to 5 reported no counter on 1.3.2023.

6. The 2nd respondent also denied the case of the petitioner and pleaded

that the car driver was not having valid driving licence as on the date of the

accident and it alternatively pleaded that the compensation and the interest

claimed are highly exaggerated.

7. Based on the above said pleadings, the following issues were framed

for trial:

1) Whether accident occurred on 17.6.2016 due to rash and

negligent act of the driver of car No.AP20TV2436, as pleaded by

Jan 10 3/13 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 248 of 2018 Injury

the petitioner?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation as

prayed for? If so, to what quantum and from which of the
respondents?

3) To what relief?

8. The petitioner to prove his case examined himself as PW1 and filed 9

documents as Exs.A1 to A9. Exs.A1 to A3 are certified copies of FIR with

complaint, charge-sheet and medical certificate. Exs.A4 and A5 are discharge

summary dated 21.6.2016 and another discharge summary is dated 5.8.2016

of KIMS, Secunderabad. Ex.A6 is medical prescription dated 21.12.2016

issued by Dr.B.Devaraj, Devaraj Orthopedic Hospital, Bhadrachalam. Ex.A7 is

out-patient assessment records (5) of KIMS, Secunderabad. Ex.A8 is medical

bills (63) for Rs.5,02,221/-. Ex.A9 is disability certificate dated 9.11.2018

issued by the Medical Board, Bhadrachalam.

9. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent examined its Senior Assistant

A.Manmadha Rao as RW1 and filed copy of insurance policy as Ex.B1.

Findings on the issues:

10. PW1 reiterated the manner of accident as pleaded and filed Exs.A1 and

A2 in his support. In the cross-examination, he stated that due to fast driving

Jan 10 4/13 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 248 of 2018 Injury

of the car and due to pit in the middle of the road, the car went and dashed

the tree on the left side of the road.

11. There is no cross-examination of PW1 on Exs.A1 and A2, which show

that the police, after investigation, filed charge-sheet against Peddada

Ganapathirao for causing grievous injuries to the petitioner by his rash and

negligent driving of the car on 17.6.2016 at 06.30 hours at Madhavaraopet

Centre of Lakshmipuram village.

12. As against the above evidence, there is evidence of RW1 that there was

no negligence on the part of the car driver and that the petitioner sustained

injuries due to his gross negligence. He is not eye witness and he cannot be

believed.

13. In view of the evidence of PW1 and Exs.A1 and A2, the issue has to be

decided in favour of the petitioners.

14. As regards the injury received, the treatment taken for the injury and

the expenditure for treatment to the injury, there is evidence of PW1 and the

medical record. RW1 admitted that the petitioner received injuries in the

motor vehicle accident.

15. PW2 examined and treated the petitioner and issued Exs.A3 and A8.

He stated that on 19.6.2016 (it must be 17.6.2016) the petitioner came to

Jan 10 5/13 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 248 of 2018 Injury

Area Hospital, Bhadrachalam with history of RTA. He examined the petitioner

and found fracture of right femur compound comminuted, grievous injury.

After X-Ray, the petitioner was referred to higher centre for further

treatment. In the cross-examination, he stated that the petitioner was

treated for one day and POP slab was applied.

16. Ex.A8(43) is only quotation dated 1.3.2019 issued by PW2 for

Rs.99,000/- for implant removal. PW2 did not say that the implant removal is

necessary. PW1 did not say that he underwent surgery for implant removal.

17. PW3’s evidence is that the petitioner met with RTA on 17.6.2016

around 6.30 am near Bhadrachalam. The petitioner had head injury and

history of loss of consciousness. The petitioner is a known hypertensive and

diabetic. The petitioner came to the emergency department on 17.6.2016

with fracture femur with open injury. There was a bleeding from thigh bone

and 5 x 1 cm and 2 x 1 cm wound on thigh bone. After tests, the petitioner

was taken for surgery on 18.6.2016. The petitioner underwent open

reduction and internal fixation of thigh bone with cement spacer. Due to

open injury and suspected infection and contamination, cement spacer was

placed. On 21.6.2016 the petitioner was discharged with strict diabetic

control with insulin and was advised to come for review to the OPD on

14.7.2016. The petitioner followed up on 3.8.2016 with sutures removed

elsewhere. As per his advice, the petitioner was admitted for removal of

Jan 10 6/13 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 248 of 2018 Injury

cement spacer plus bone grafting. On 4.8.2016 the said surgery was done.

On 5.8.2016 the petitioner was discharged and was advised to come for

review on 18.8.2016 for suture removal. On 17.10.2016 the petitioner was

reviewed with sutures removed elsewhere.

18. Further evidence of PW3 is that the petitioner was advised review

every 6 to 8 weeks to check bone healing. On 23.1.2017 the petitioner visited

the hospital for X-Ray and was advised review after 6 months. The petitioner

was followed up on 23.5.2018 and check X-Ray was taken which showed good

bone healing. The petitioner had only 0 to 110 degree range of motion of the

right knee joint. The petitioner was again advised review after 6 months and

was also advised physiotherapy. The injury is grievous in nature with

temporary disability. There is increased chance of developing early

osteoarthritis of knee joint from the trauma. Exs.A4, A5, A7 and A8 (bills in

the name of KIMS) were issued by their hospital.

19. In the cross-examination PW2 admitted that the fractured bones united

but stated that the fracture united in delayed time. He admitted that the

petitioner can walk and stand without support but stated that the petitioner

has limp and is unable to sit cross-legged. He stated that the petitioner was

discharged in haemodynamically stable condition. The last follow up of the

petitioner was in October 2018. The petitioner can attend to his duties with

minimal discomfort and occasional pain. Amount of Rs.1,73,174/- in the bill

Jan 10 7/13 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 248 of 2018 Injury

dated 21.6.2016 and another amount of Rs.50,400/- in the bill dated 5.8.2016

have to be clarified from the billing and insurance department for the TPA

Credit Insurance from the hospital. He denied the suggestion that he

exaggerated the injuries and the medical expenditure.

20. The medical evidence on record shows that the petitioner was

diagnosed to have right grade II open right D/E femur segmental comminuted

segmental fracture with articular extension. He was hospitalized twice, first

from 17.6.2016 to 21.6.2016 and second from 3.8.2016 to 5.8.2016. He

underwent surgery twice, once for fixing the fracture and another for removal

of cement spacer and bone grafting. He was advised follow up treatment. His

last follow up was in October 2018. For about 2 years 4 months he suffered

from temporary physical disability. He had only 0 to 110 degree range of

motion of right knee joint. The nature of the injuries justifies for grant of

Rs.80,000/- to the petitioner for ‘pain, suffering and trauma’.

21. Ex.A8, medical bills, are for Rs.5,02,221/-. PW1 denied the suggestion

that all the medical bills are paid by Medicare TPA Insurance Policy. Ex.A8(1)

shows that the petitioner paid only Rs.18,537/- and the remaining amount of

Rs.31,863.51 was paid by Medicare TPA Credit and Ex.A8(2) shows that he paid

only Rs.4,174/- and the remaining amount of Rs.1,69,000.14 was paid by

Medicare TPA Credit. PW3 admitted that Exs.A8 (44) to A8 (60) are xerox

copies attested by him and the originals of which were issued to the

Jan 10 8/13 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 248 of 2018 Injury

petitioner. Under Exs.A8(1) and (2) the petitioner paid only Rs.22,711/- and he

is, therefore, entitled for payment of the said amount.

22. Exs.A8(11) to A8(42) are the bills which are not issued by KIMS. None

connected with those bills was examined. Therefore, the petitioner is not

entitled to claim those bills.

23. PW3 stated that Exs.A8(3) to A8(10) were issued by their hospital.

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to claim the said bills which come to

Rs.3,950/-.

24. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is entitled to claim Rs.26,661/-

under the head ‘medical expenses’.

25. During the treatment period, the petitioner must have spent

considerable amount for transportation, physiotherapy, extra nourishment

and attendant charges and the same are estimated at Rs.80,000/-.

26. As regards ‘future medical expenses’, there is evidence of PW2. He

stated that there is a challenge to the petitioner to squat, sitting cross-legged

and fast climbing stairs. The petitioner may have to go for removal of the

implant if it gets infected/broken and to improve the knee range of motion,

which is normally 0 to 150 degrees. The approximate charges for removal of

the implant is Rs.1,20,000/- to Rs.1,40,000/-.

Jan 10 9/13 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 248 of 2018 Injury

27. The accident is of the year 2016. There is no cross-examination of PW2

on the aspect of the petitioner’s requirement for removal of the implants. The

approximate cost of the surgery as given by PW2 is minimum of Rs.1,20,000/-.

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to claim Rs.1,20,000/- under the head

‘future medical expenses’.

28. To prove the disability with which he has been suffering, the petitioner

filed disability certificate, Ex.A9, and examined PW4 who was a member in the

Medical Board, Bhadradri which issued Ex.A9.

29. PW4’s evidence is that on 19.11.2018 he and the other members of the

Medical Board examined the petitioner and issued Ex.A9 on the basis of post

traumatic sequel-limbs and that the percentage of the disability is 65%.

30. As per Ex.A9, the disability of the petitioner is in relation to his right

lower limb, impaired reach. The petitioner meets the following requirements

for discharge of his duties: F – an perform work by manipulating with fingers,

PP – can perform work by pulling and pushing, L – can perform work by lifting,

RW – can perform work by reading and writing.

31. PW4 admitted in the cross-examination that in Ex.A9 it is mentioned

that the certificate is not valid for medico legal cases and that Ex.A9 is issued

only for utilizing government schemes. But he denied the suggestion that the

Jan 10 10/13 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 248 of 2018 Injury

percentage of the disability issued is excessive one.

32. PW2 also spoke about the petitioner’s disability. He said that the

petitioner had 0 to 110 degree range of motion of the right knee joint. There

is increased chance of developing early osteoarthritis of knee joint from the

trauma. There is a challenge for the petitioner to squat, sitting cross legged

and fast climbing stairs.

33. The petitioner gave his age as 39 years. He stated that he was working

as Assistant Project Manager, IKP in Velugu Department, Bhadrachalam and

was earning Rs.26,000/- per month. In Ex.A2, the petitioner’s age is

mentioned as 38 years and his occupation as Assistant Project Manager, IKP,

Velugu Department, Bhadrachalam. There is no cross-examination of PW1 on

those aspects.

34. PW1 admitted that he has been attending to his job. Therefore, it was

contended that there is no disability. If a person with disability attends to his

duty, it does not mean that he is not suffering from disability. The medical

evidence on record clearly shows that the disability of the petitioner in

relation to his right lower limb is 65%.

35. In view of the above discussion and in the facts and circumstances of

the case, the petitioner, under the head ‘disability’ is entitled to claim

Jan 10 11/13 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 248 of 2018 Injury

Rs.9,36,000/-.

36. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is entitled to claim

compensation of Rs.12,42,661/- from the respondents, jointly and severally.

Issue Nos.2 and 3 are accordingly decided.

37. In the result, the petitioner shall pay the required court fee within a

week from this day and respondent Nos.2 to 5 shall, jointly and severally,

deposit into this Tribunal, within a month from this day, the compensation

amount of Rs.12,42,661/- with costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from

12.3.2018 to 9.5.2019 and from this day till the date of realization. The

liability of respondent Nos.2 to 5 is limited to the extent of the assets

inherited from the deceased P.Ramakrishna. On deposit, the petitioner is at

liberty to withdraw the entire amount. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

The petition is accordingly allowed.

Partly dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him and corrected by me

and partly prepared, pronounced and signed by me in the open Court on this
the 10th day of January, 2024.

CHAIRMAN

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS

PW1 Sri G.Prasad Reddy RW1 A.Manmadha Rao

Jan 10 12/13 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 248 of 2018 Injury

PW2 Dr.B.Devraj
PW3 Dr.Uday Krishna Myneni
PW4 Dr.B.Muralidhar

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS

Ex.A1 CC of FIR with complaint

Ex.A2 Certified copy of charge-sheet
Ex.A3 Certified copy of medical certificate
Ex.A4 Discharge summary of KIMS, Hyderabad dated 21.6.2016
Ex.A5 Discharge summary of KIMS, Hyderabad dated 5.8.2016
Ex.A6 Medical prescription issued by Devaraj Orthopedic Hospital,
Bhadrachalam dated 21.11.2016
Ex.A7 Outpatient Assessment record
Ex.A8 Medical bills (63) for Rs.5,02,221/-
Ex.A9 Disability certificate dated 9.11.2018

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.B1 Copy of insurance policy

CHAIRMAN

Jan 10 13/13 PDJ, KMM