HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.103 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel Sri B.Venkat Reddy for the appellant/claimant and Sri. Narsaiah Golla, learned standing counsel for respondent no.2-insurance company.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/ claimant dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short, 'MACT') in M.V.O.P.No.1232 of 2011, dated 03.08.2013 and thereby seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
4. On 26.03.2011 at about 8.45 am, the appellant/claimant along with respondent No.3/driver of the Car bearing registration No.AP-09-C-2326 was proceeding from Dandumailaram towards his poultry farm side and when they reached the outskirts of Dandumailaram near Kamrolla Bavi, the driver of the Car drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and could not control the vehicle and thus, car turned turtle and fell down into a Kamaratolla dry agricultural well, due to which, the appellant LNA,J MACMA No.103 of 2015 2 sustained injuries and he was shifted to Indus hospital at Kothapet, Hyderabad. The Police, Ibrahimpatnam P.S., registered a case in Crime No.110 of 2011 under Section 338 IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle and filed charge sheet.
5. The claimant, i.e., appellant has filed claim petition against owner, driver of the offending vehicle and insurance company under Section 166 of M.V.Act, 1989 and the Rules made there under before the MACT claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.
6. The appellant was aged about 28 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and was working as labour under self- employment scheme and was earning income of Rs.4,500/- per month.
7. The respondent No.3 remained ex parte. The respondent No.1-owner of offending vehicle and respondent No.2-insurance company filed counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition and further contended that the insured and insurer of offending vehicle are necessary parties and that the compensation claimed by the appellant is highly exorbitant and excess and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
LNA,J MACMA No.103 of 2015 3
8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the MACT framed the following issues:
i) Whether the accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e.Maruthi Car bearing No.AP-09-C-2326?
ii) Whether the offending vehicle driver was having effective driving license at the time of alleged accident.?
iii) Whether the offending vehicle was having proper records at the time of the alleged accidents?
iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation and if so, from whom and if so to what extent ?
v) To what relief ?
9. In order to substantiate the case, P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined on behalf of the claimant and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked. To disprove the claim of the appellant, the respondents did not examine any witness, however, insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.
10. The MACT, after considering the evidence placed on record, came to a conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing registration No.AP-09-C-2326 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,64,500/- along with interest @ LNA,J MACMA No.103 of 2015 4 7.5% per annum from the date of deposit or realization whichever is earlier. The owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurance company i.e., respondent Nos.1 & 2 were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.
11. During the course of hearing of appeal, the learned counsel for appellant submitted that the MACT ought to have granted the full amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as just and proper compensation and ought to have appreciated that appellant has sustained (i) fractures of 2, 3, 4 and 5 left side ribs and restriction of movements of left shoulder and (ii) laceration of occipital region. He submitted that MACT ought to have granted compensation of Rs.27,000/- towards loss of earnings during treatment i.e., for three months. He further submitted that MACT ought to have granted Rs.1,42,000/- for continuing permanent disability and loss of pleasures and amenities of life and loss of future loss earnings.
12. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for insurance company submitted that MACT on appreciation of evidence and material on record, rightly awarded the compensation and there is LNA,J MACMA No.103 of 2015 5 no need to interfere with the award passed by the MACT and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
13. With regard to the injuries, the MACT came to conclusion that appellant sustained the following injuries:
i) laceration at left temporal region
ii) Laceration above the nose forehead
iii) Laceration at occipital region
iv) Fractures 2, 3, 4, 5 left ribs.
14. On evaluation of the evidence, P.W.1, who is the appellant/claimant and P.W.2, who is the Doctor and also the documents placed before the MACT, the MACT awarded the following amounts under various heads:
i) Loss of earnings:
The MACT considered the monthly earnings of appellant at Rs.4,500/- and observed that appellant required three months bed rest and therefore, awarded an amount of Rs.13,500/- (Rs.4500/- x 3) towards loss of earnings.
LNA,J MACMA No.103 of 2015 6
ii) Expenditure towards treatment:
The MACT has considered Ex.A6-discharge bill, Exs.A7 to A13, which are inpatient bills of Indus hospitals, and also Ex.A14-buch of medical bills, aggregating Rs.21,378/- and awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/-, which also includes extra nourishment etc.
iii) Pain and suffering:
The MACT considering the nature of injuries had awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering.
iv) The MACT having considered that the appellant/claimant had sustained four fracture injuries and thus, awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to each fracture, totaling to Rs.40,000/-.
15. In considered view of this Court, the amount awarded by MACT is too meager and therefore, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, therefore, the Appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- to each fracture, aggregating to Rs.80,000/-.
16. Except the above enhancement, all other grounds raised by the appellant are rejected.
LNA,J MACMA No.103 of 2015 7
17. Therefore, the Appeal is partly allowed enhancing compensation of Rs.1,64,500/- to Rs.2,04,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of deposit till date of realization. The respondent no.2-Insurance Company herein shall deposit the above compensation amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount.
18. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
[[ ____________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 29.09.2023 Ktm/kkm LNA,J MACMA No.103 of 2015 8 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.NO.103 OF 2015 Date: 29.09.2023 Ktm/kkm