HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2358 and 3656 of 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Since both the appeals are arising out of the same
judgment, they are heard together and being disposed of by this
common judgment.
2. While M.A.C.M.A.No.2358 of 2014 is filed by the claimant
seeking enhancement of compensation, M.A.C.M.A.No.3656 of
2014 is filed by the United Insurance Company Limited,
assailing the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2013 made in
M.V.O.P.No.593 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District
and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Sangareddy (for short
"the Tribunal").
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be
referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.06.2009 while the
claimant, along with his son, was returning to his village
Chitkul with bullock cart, at about 9:00 p.m., when they
reached in front of Rice Mill in the limits of Muthangi, Lorry
bearing No.AP 22 T 8786, owned by respondent No.1, insured
with respondent No.2, being driven by its driver in rash and 2 negligent manner at high speed, dashed the bullock cart. As a result, the claimant sustained multiple injuries and the cart was completed damaged and one of the bull died on the spot. The claimant was treated at Sai Ganesh Hospital, Patancheru, by incurring huge amount towards treatment. The Police, Patancheruvu police station, registered a case in Crime No.265 of 2008 against the driver of the Lorry, for the offences punishable under Sections 338 and 279 of I.P.C. Since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry, the claimant filed the claim-petition against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.
5. While the respondent No.1 remained ex parte, the respondent No.2 contested the claim-petition. The Tribunal after considering the claim and the counter filed by respondent No.2 and after evaluation of the evidence brought on record, allowed the O.P. in part awarding a sum of Rs.41,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum, to be paid by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the claimant as well as the insurance company filed the present appeals.
3
6. Heard and perused the material available on record.
7. Learned counsel for the claimant has contended that though the claim was for Rs.2,00,000/-, the Tribunal has granted a meagre amount of Rs.41,000/- without considering the fact that the claimant used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month by doing agriculture and sending the bullock cart on hire basis. In the absence of any contra evidence adduced by the insurance company, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the total compensation as claimed by the claimant. It is further contended that due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries such as lacerated injury to right temporal region and abrasion to left shoulder apart from other injuries all over the body and he had to incur huge amounts towards treatment.
8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has contended that although there is no coverage of policy for the dead bullock and bullock cart, the Tribunal had erroneously awarded the compensation, which is against the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erred in considering the fact 4 that the accident was occurred due to the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.
9. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the Tribunal has framed issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, and after considering the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence, Ex.A1, F.I.R., Ex.A2, charge sheet and Ex.A4-scene of offence, the Tribunal has categorically observed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry and has answered the issue in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry.
10. Insofar as the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company that the bull and bullock cart are not covered by Ex.B1 is concerned, as observed above, the accident occurred due to the sheer rash and negligence of the driver of the Lorry and Ex.B1 policy was very much in force by the time of the accident. Such being the case, the insurance 5 company cannot escape from liability of payment of compensation.
11. Coming to the quantum of compensation, due to the impact of the accident, admittedly one bull died and the bullock cart was totally damaged which is the source of income of the claimant, for which, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-. As per Ex.A3, Medical Certificate, the claimant has sustained lacerated injury to right temporal region and abrasion to left shoulder. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A3, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for simple injuries, Rs.5,000/- for extra nourishment and medicines, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,000/- towards transportation charges. As seen from Ex.A5, Post Mortem Examination Report, one bull died. According to the claimant, he used to generate income by giving the bullock cart on hire basis apart from ploughing the lands. As seen from Ex.A4, scene of offence, the bullock cart was completely damaged. In such circumstances, it can be presumed that the claimant might have sustained substantial financial loss as the bullock cart was his source of income. Considering all these circumstances and considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, this Court is inclined to 6 enhance the compensation from Rs.41,000/- to Rs.80,000/- under all the heads.
12. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.3656 of 2014 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the M.A.C.M.A.No.2358 of 2014 filed by the claimant is allowed in part enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.41,000/- to Rs.80,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the judgment passed by the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 20.10.2022 Tsr