HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
MACMA. No.2126 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati (for short 'the Tribunal') by an order dated 13.03.2009 in MVOP No.379 of 2007, the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the MV OP.
3. The claimant has filed a claim petition under Section 166 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for compensation of Rs.75,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.12.2005 at about 11.00 AM. While she was proceeding on a motorcycle as a pillion rider, a Mahindra vehicle bearing Re.No.AP 04/U 8447 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle) driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle and thereby sustained injuries. She was shifted to SVRR GG hospital, Tirupati, for treatment.
4. The first respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle, has remained ex-parte.
2
MACMA_2126_2013
5. The second respondent/insurance company has filed its counter denying the mode of the accident, age, income, and occupation of the claimant and contending that the rider of the motorcycle was negligent in driving the motorcycle and that there was no negligence on the part of the first respondent.
6. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues. During the trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 . on behalf of the second respondent, a copy of the policy was marked as Ex.B.1, but no oral evidence was let in.
7. After considering oral and documentary evidence and on hearing both the learned counsel, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation an amount of Rs.5,250/- to the claimant together with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum.
8. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable and whether it requires any enhancement. 3
MACMA_2126_2013 POINT:
9. The claimant herself was examined as P.W.1 to prove her case; she has deposed about the manner of the accident. The tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The respondents have not disputed the correctness of the finding given by the tribunal by preferring the appeal or cross-objections. Thus, the finding given by the tribunal attained finality.
10. Now the dispute is only concerning the quantum of the compensation amount. The claimant relied on Ex.A.3-wound certificate to prove the injuries, loosening of central incisors, tenderness over the middle 1/3rd of the right thigh, and abrasion of ½ x ½ cm over the left knee.
11. The tribunal observed that, as the claimant sustained the three injuries mentioned above, she must have suffered pain during treatment. As seen from the record, the claimant examined Dr.A. Sudhakar Reddy as P.W.2 to establish that she sustained disability in the accident and has marked Ex.A.5-permanent disability certificate. The tribunal observed that the claimant did not choose to obtain a disability certificate from the District Medical Board. It further observed that in the claim petition, 4 MACMA_2126_2013 there is no mention of the treatment given by P.W.2 at any point in time. P.W.2, in his evidence, also did not mention the date on which the claimant came to the hospital for treatment. In the facts of the case, the tribunal observed that had the claimant obtained treatment under P.W.2 after her discharge from SVRR GG hospital, Tirupati, she would have stated so in the petition that was filed long after the date of the accident. By giving cogent and convincing reasons, the tribunal disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 about the treatment provided by P.W.2. After considering evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 as well as the reasons given by the tribunal, this Court concludes that the tribunal has rightly discarded evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 regarding permanent disability said to be sustained by pw1
12. From the material on record, it can observe that the second respondent/insurance company has not disputed the three injuries sustained by the claimant, of which injury No.1 is shown to be the loosening of the central incisors. According to the evidence of P.W.2 and as per Ex.A.3-wound certificate, the injuries sustained by the claimant are simple. According to P.W.2, injury No.1, loosening the central incisors, is grievous. Admittedly, P.W.2 has not given the wound certificate. As already 5 MACMA_2126_2013 observed, the tribunal disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 regarding the treatment given by P.W.2. Though P.W.2 has supported the claimant's case, the tribunal has not inclined to accept it concerning the nature of the injury, i.e., loosening the central incisors is grievous. However, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,000/- towards pain and suffering towards three simple injuries sustained by the claimant. This Court is of the view that as it is established that the claimant suffered loosening of the central incisors, the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal under the head of pain, suffering and injuries is considered to be meagre.
13. In the facts of the case, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation amount, particularly considering the nature of injury No.1 said to be sustained by the claimant, which is loosening the central incisors. After carefully reading the material on record, this Court views that the tribunal ought to have granted compensation amount of Rs.6,000/- towards pain and suffe`ring caused by three simple injuries. For the reasons stated above, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation under the head pain and suffering to Rs.6,000/- from Rs.3000/. 6
MACMA_2126_2013
14. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed without costs enhancing the compensation amount of Rs.8,250/- from Rs.5,250/- with interest as awarded by the tribunal. In other respects, the order dated 13.03.2009 in MVOP No.379 of 2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, holds good. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the balance of the compensation amount within a month of receiving a copy of this order. On deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the total compensation and interest.
15. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J Dt.28.10.2022 BV