HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1519 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
Being dissatisfied with the order and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in M.V.O.P. No.2486 of 2014 dated 10.10.2017, M/s. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal.
2. According to the petitioner, on 29-04-2014 at about 10-00 p.m. while he was proceeding on his friend's motorcycle bearing No. AP 28 BD 8611 towards Nagergul from Gurramguda village and when he reached in front of rice mills, Gurramguda village, one lorry bearing No. AP 05 U 7967 being driven by its driver came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and its driver lost control over it and dashed his motorcycle, as a result of which, he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and fractures. Immediately he was shifted to NIMS, Hyderabad and admitted as in-patient, underwent major operation and spent more than Rs.3,50,000/- towards his treatment and medical expenses. Due to the said injuries, he became 2 MGP, J MACMA.No.1519 of 2018 permanently disabled and could not attend his work and cannot walk freely. Thus, he is claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- under various heads.
3. Respondent No.1 set ex parte; Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner of accident, nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and further contended that the claim is exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1) Whether the injuries sustained by M.Vasu in motor accident occurred on 29-09-2014 are due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle lorry bearing No. AP.05.U.7967?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation, if so, how much and from
whom respondent?
3) To what relief?
5. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A12 and Ex.X1. On behalf of the respondent No.2-Insurance Company, no witnesses were examined, however, Ex.B1 got marked. 3
MGP, J MACMA.No.1519 of 2018
6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.14,99,976/- towards compensation along with proportionate costs and interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realization to the claimant against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
7. Heard the learned Standing counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company and the learned Counsel for respondent No.1- claimant. Perused the material available on record.
8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal failed to observe that the injured could not observe the vehicular traffic and lost control over the motorcycle and dashed against the lorry from the opposite direction and the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred only due to the negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and that there is contributory negligence. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the injured at Rs.10,000/- per month and awarded excessive compensation.
4
MGP, J MACMA.No.1519 of 2018
9. The learned counsel for the claimant sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal contending that considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment taken by him, the learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
10. With regard to the manner of accident, though the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that there is contributory negligence over both the vehicles, PW-1 who is the injured categorically stated that on 29-9-2017 at about 10.00 p.m. he was riding the motorcycle and when he reached near rice mill, Gurramguda village, lorry bearing No. AP 05 U 7967 came from the opposite direction at high speed and its driver lost control over the vehicle and dashed the motorcycle. Further the police after thorough investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending lorry. No contra evidence was produced by the Insurance Company with regard to the manner of accident. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW-1 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry. Now another dispute raised by the counsel for 5 MGP, J MACMA.No.1519 of 2018 Insurance Company in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
11. As per the evidence available on record, according to the petitioner, he was aged 21 years and studying 3rd year B.Tech in Spurthi Engineering College. PW-1 deposed that he was treated as in-patient in NIMS for the injuries sustained by him. PWs.2 to 4 are Plastic Surgeon, Assistant Registrar and Orthopedic Surgeon at NIMS respectively. According to their evidence, PW-1 suffered with compound supra condylar fracture, right femur with libia fracture, humorous fracture with closed middle third right ulna fracture and fracture of distal end radius and other injuries and skin grafting was done and that he spent Rs.87,260/- towards medical expenses and then for some part of the treatment, it was done under Arogya Sree Scheme of the State Government. Ex.A3 injury certificate shows that PW-1 sustained four fracture injuries and considering the same, the Tribunal awarded Rs.60,000/- @ Rs.15,000/- per each injury, Rs.20,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.49,716/- towards medical expenses and investigation charges, and Rs.8,000/- towards ambulance charges.
12. With regard to the disability sustained by the petitioner, PW.4 deposed that PW-1 suffers from 75% partial permanent 6 MGP, J MACMA.No.1519 of 2018 disability and PW-5 who is a Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, King Koti also supported the same and issued Ex.A10 disability certificate alleging that PW-1 suffers inability to write with right hand and difficulty in walking and requires crutch and he could not squat or sit on the floor and sustained permanent disability at 80%. However, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the Tribunal has taken the disability of the claimant at 50% and considering educational qualification of PW-1, his income has taken at Rs.10,000/- per month and awarded an amount of Rs.10,20,000/- towards loss of his earning capacity. Further the Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of marital prospects, Rs.50,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. Further an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of endowments and beauty, which is not necessary as the petitioner was already awarded adequate compensation under various heads. Thus in all, the petitioner is awarded Rs.14,19,976/-, which is rounded off to Rs.14,20,000/-.
13. With regard to the rate of interest, the Tribunal awarded interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till realization, which is 7 MGP, J MACMA.No.1519 of 2018 not reasonable. Therefore, the rate of interest is fixed at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by reducing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs.14,20,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The amount shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, he is entitled to withdraw the compensation amount without furnishing any security. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 02.12.2022 pgp