HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1834 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the Shriram General insurance Company Limited questioning the order and decree dated 25.11.2013 in M.V.O.P.No.679 of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (III Fast Track Court), Warangal at Mahabubabad.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 26.03.2012 the claimant along with other farmers in order to sell chilli produce in the Grain Market, Warangal engaged DCM van bearing No. AP 36 Y 3507 and loaded the chilli bags in the said van and accompanied the van to Warangal for unloading purpose. The driver of the van drove it in rash and negligent manner, lost control, as a result of which, the inmates of the van including the petitioner received injuries. Based on the complaint, police, Rayaparthy registered a case in crime No.42 of 2012 against the driver of the DCM van and filed charge sheet against him. 2 According to the petitioner, he is an agriculturist and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Thus, the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the DCM van jointly and severally.
4. Respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner in which the accident occurred, age, avocation, income, health condition of the petitioner/claimant and the nature of injuries sustained by him. It is further contended that the driver of the DCM van was not having valid driving license at the time of accident and that the DCM van was a goods carriage vehicle and its registered seating capacity is only for three persons i.e., owner/driver, cleaner and paid driver. The petitioner along with eight other owners of goods were traveling by the vehicle, which is contrary to the rules and regulations and thus violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set- aside.
5. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioners, PW.1 was examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of 3 respondent No.2, RW.1 and R.W. 2 were examined and Ex.B1 and B2 were marked.
6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.35,000/- towards compensation to the claimant along with proportionate costs and interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
7. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-respondent No.2 Insurance Company and the learned Counsel for the claimant. Perused the material available on record.
8. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the DCM van being a goods carriage vehicle and the seating capacity is only for three persons, but at the time of accident there were eight persons were traveling and due to over crowd and excessive passengers, the driver could not control the vehicle as such, the accident occurred and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant submitted that the tribunal after considering all the aspects has partly 4 allowed the petition and awarded compensation of Rs.35,000/-, in fact it is a meager amount and therefore, prayed for just compensation.
10. In view of the rival contentions, this Court has perused the order of the tribunal, which discloses that the tribunal having framed issue No.1 as, "whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DCM Van bearing No. AP.36.Y.3507", after considering the evidence of PW-1 who is the injured cum eyewitness coupled with Ex.A1 First Information Report and Ex.A4 charge sheet, has categorically observed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DCM Van and answered the issue in favour of the claimant. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the findings of the tribunal on this aspect.
11. In so far as the main ground urged by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company that the DCM Van was a goods carriage vehicle and the seating capacity is only for three persons. However, at the time of accident, there are nine persons traveling along with their goods. This Court has perused the First Information Report and charge sheet, which discloses that there were nine persons traveling 5 along with their goods i.e., chilli bags at the time of accident and all the inmates of the DCM Van have sustained injuries.
12. It is pertinent to state that though the accident occurred and nine persons got injured but the respondent No.1/claimant herein is the person who is traveling in the DCM van as owner of the goods. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that he can be treated as a third party to the policy and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Further even as per the evidence of RW-1, owner of the goods can travel in the cabin of the vehicle. Under these circumstances, the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability to pay the compensation to the petitioner and the tribunal has rightly held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. Hence, interference of this Court is unwarranted as the tribunal considered all the aspects.
13. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the claimant has sustained one grievous injury and two simple injuries and he took treatment in MGM Hospital, Warangal. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- for one grievous injury, Rs.5,000/- for two simple injuries, 6 Rs.2,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.3,000/- for extra nourishment and transport charges, which appears to be very less. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the treatment taken by him at MGM Hospital, Warangal, the claimant is entitled for the following amounts:
Sl.No. Nature of head Amount awarded by Amount awarded
the tribunal by this Court
01. For one grievous injury Rs.15,000/- Rs.25,000/-
02. For two simple injuries Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/-
03. For pain and sufferance Rs.2,000/- Rs.15,000/-
04. For medical bills Rs.10,601/- Rs.10,601/-
05. For extra nourishment Rs.3,000/- Rs.15,000/-
and transport charges
06. For loss of earnings Rs. -- Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.35,601/- Rs.85,601/-
rounded to
Rs.35,000/-
14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.85,601/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The amount shall be deposited within a period of one month 7 from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the compensation awarded to him without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 09.03.2023 pgp