THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
M.A.C.M.A.No.2205 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2008 in O.P.No.605 of 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, (Fast Tract Court), Nizamabad (for short 'The Tribunal'), the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal.
2. Vide the aforesaid award, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.67,676/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Thousand Six Seventy Six only) as compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to deposit the amount.
3. The appellant/claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 455 of the A.P.M.V Rules for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs only) for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road accident.
4. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the Scooter bearing No. AP 25 J 2955 and respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company Limited.
5. Heard Sri Y.S. Yellanand Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Sri Suresh Kumar Bolla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
2
SKS,J MACMA.No.2205_2008
6. Insurance Company has not filed any appeal in disputing the liability and also not disputing the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
7. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the appellant that on 04.02.2004 at about 08:00 A.M., while the petitioner going by walk from B.C. Colony towards Munipalli Village, meantime, the driver of the scooter bearing No.AP 25 J 2955 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, came from behind and dashed the appellant, due to which, the appellant fell down and sustained multiple and grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the appellant was shifted to Tirumala Nursing Home, Nizamabad.
8. The Tribunal on consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, gave a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and the same vehicle is insured with respondent No.2, as such, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.67,676/- payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Aggrieved by the quantum, the claimants filed the present appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though she received fractural injuries and she was in the hospital for a period of one month, the Tribunal did not considered the same and awarded only meager amount.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal awarded sufficient amount and there is no need to enhance the said amount.
3
SKS,J MACMA.No.2205_2008
11. As seen from the record, to prove the claim, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined Medical Officer as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A10. The respondent No.2-Insurance company examined as RW1 and marked Exs.B1 to B3.
12. To prove the injuries, Dr. Sanjeev Singh Yadav examined as P.W.2 and according to him, the appellant received grievous injuries. In his opinion, both injuries are grievous in nature. He conducted operation on first injury and has done regular dressing. The wound did not heal. Therefore, P.W.2 had done second surgery on 06.03.2004 and done skin drafting. P.W.1 discharged on 12.03.2004.
13. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.18000/- towards pain and suffering for all the injuries, which is meager. As the appellant received fractural injuries, she is entitled for Rs.30,000/- for fractural injuries and under the head of pain and suffering. Further, basing on Exs.A4 and A5, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.45,176/- towards medical expenses, extra diet and attendance which is reasonable and the same is maintained. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,500/- towards Loss of income, but this Court is inclined to grant Rs.13,500/- towards loss of income. Further, Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards transportation charges and extra nourishment. Further, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards Damage to clothes.
14. In the light of the above mentioned discussion, the appellant is entitled to the following amounts:
4
SKS,J MACMA.No.2205_2008 Heads Compensation awarded Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
Medical expenses, extra diet and Rs. 45,176/-
attendance Transportation and extra Rs.25,000/-
nourishment
Loss of income Rs.13,500/-
Damage to clothes Rs.5,000/-
Total Rs.1,18,876/- (Rounded off to
Rs.1,19,000/-)
15. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law.
12. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another 1, the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh 2 held as under:
"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."
1 (2011) 10 SCC 756 2 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 5 SKS,J MACMA.No.2205_2008
13. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed.
Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a paramount consideration the Courts should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.67,676/- to Rs.1,19,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Nineteen Thousand only). The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award by the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondents jointly and severally after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier within one(1) month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Judgment and thereafter, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same. However, the claimants are directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J DATE: 17.11.2023 SAI 6 SKS,J MACMA.No.2205_2008 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA M.A.C.M.A.No.2205 of 2008 Date:17.11.2023 SAI