HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.750 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel Sri P.Radhive Reddy for the appellant/claimant and Sri. C.H.Satish Kumar, 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-VIII Additional District Judge at Nizamabad (for short, 'MACT') in O.P.No.1077 of 2007, dated 10.09.2013 and thereby seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
4. On 28.12.2006 about 8.30 am, the appellant/claimant was peddling cycle by the side of the road very slowly from Perkit towards Morthad side, while he reached petrol pump of Lakkora village shivar, a Car bearing registration No.AP-15-AC-3393 dashed the said cycle from behind and due to which, the appellant received right leg both bones compound comminuted fractures, head injury and he was shifted to M.J.Hospital, Armoor. The LNA,J MACMA No.750 of 2015 2 Police, Velpur P.S., registered a case against the driver of the offending vehicle and filed charge sheet.
5. The claimant, i.e., appellant has filed claim petition against owner of the vehicle and insurance company under Section 166(1)(a) of M.V.Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 M.V.Rules, 1989 before the MACT claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum from 14.12.2007 till the date of deposit of amount.
6. The appellant was aged about 50 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and was working as Attender in Upper Primary School, Kompally and was earning income of Rs.10,000/- per month and due to physical disability, he was unable to work and survive.
7. The respondent No.1-owner of offending vehicle filed counter denying the allegations in the claim petition and contended that the appellant did not sustain any injury or fracture. He further contended that if the case of the appellant is proved, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation as the offending vehicle is insured with the insurance company.
LNA,J MACMA No.750 of 2015 3
8. The respondent No.2-insurance company also filed counter denying the allegations in the claim petition and further contended that there was clear violation of conditions of the policy and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and that the compensation claimed by the appellant is highly exorbitant and excess and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
9. On the basis of the above pleadings, the MACT framed the following issues:
i) Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing No.AP-15AC-3393 by its driver?
ii) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident and whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
iii) To what relief ?
10. In order to substantiate the case, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and examined another witness as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked on his behalf. To disprove the claim of the appellant, the respondent Nos 1 and 2 did not examine any witness and did not produce any document.
LNA,J MACMA No.750 of 2015 4
11. The MACT after considering the pleadings and evidence placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing registration No.AP-15-AC-3393 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from 14.02.2007 till the date of deposit of amount. 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 amount.
12. During the course of hearing of present appeal, the learned counsel for appellant submitted that the MACT has awarded meager amounts towards compensation for pain and suffering, medical expenses, extra nourishment and transportation etc. The MACT ought to have granted future expenses that would be incurred for medical needs and prayed for enhancement of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.
13. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for insurance company submitted that the MACT, on appreciation of the evidence and material placed on record, had rightly awarded the compensation and there is no need to interfere with the award of the MACT and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
LNA,J MACMA No.750 of 2015 5 Consideration:
14. With regard to issue no.1, on consideration of evidence and the material placed on record, the MACT had come to conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, resulting in injuries to appellant in the accident.
15. With regard to the monthly income of the deceased, the MACT had taken the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month
16. In Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Rayal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs-13 & 14 observed that, "13........... appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as coolie and was earning Rs.4,500/- per month at the time of the accident.
......
The appellant was working as a coolie and, therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant.
"14............the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible 1 (2011) 13 SCC 236 LNA,J MACMA No.750 of 2015 6 income by resorting to some guesswork, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time."
17. The Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa (supra), this Court is of the considered view that monthly earnings of the claimant can be taken as Rs.4,500/-, even in the absence of any evidence. In view of the above decision, by taking the monthly salary of Rs.4,500/-, and the loss of earnings of the appellant for a period of three months comes to Rs.13,500/-.
18. In so far as the quantum of compensation awarded in respect of the injuries sustained, the appellant examined P.W.2, who is Doctor, who treated the appellant, deposed that the injury sustained by the appellant is simple and denied that P.W.1 did not undergo operation. Appellant also claimed that he incurred an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medicines. But, he failed to produce any medical bills. Though the appellant produced Ex.A6- orthopaedically handicapped certificate issued by the Medical Board in respect of disability of 45%, he failed to examine the Doctor, who issued Ex.A6 to show that he suffered disability of LNA,J MACMA No.750 of 2015 7 45%. The MACT did not consider the discharge certificate on the ground that the claimant failed to examine the Doctor, who issued certificate. The MACT had awarded collectively an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards disability and fracture and also towards insertion of rod, operation and medical expenses etc., including grievous injuries, however, the MACT did not elaborate on quantification of each head. In considered view of this Court, the compensation awarded by the MACT is improper and needs to be interfered with by this Court and accordingly, compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/-, to meet the ends of justice.
19. In so for as the quantum of compensation awarded towards extra nourishment, this Court is of the view that appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month for three months, which comes to Rs.9,000/-. The appellant is entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges.
20. In considered view of this Court, the appellant is entitled to the following compensation:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Towards extra nourishment @ Rs. 9, 000/-
Rs.3000/- p.m., for three
months
LNA,J
MACMA No.750 of 2015
8
2 Towards loss of earnings for a Rs. 13,500/-
period of 3 months @
Rs.4,500/- p.m.
3 Towards transportation Rs. 5,000/-
4 Towards disability and fractures Rs. 1,25,000/-
and also towards insertion of
rod, operation, medical
expenses etc. (including
grievous injuries)
5 Total compensation to be paid Rs.1,52,000/-
21. The award shall relate back to the date of the decree and the enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. and from the time indicated in the award of the MACT. Conclusion:
22. The Appeal is allowed in part enhancing compensation from Rs.1,20,000/- to Rs.1,52,000/-. The respondent no.2-Insurance Company herein shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
23. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
[[ ____________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 29.09.2023 Kkm/ktm