Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Galipothula Yohan, Prakasam ... vs Shaik Yaheeya, Kadapa District ... on 31 January, 2022
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.2241 of 2011
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "M.V. Act")
aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 02.12.2008, passed in
M.V.O.P.No.57 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kurnool (for short "the
tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been
referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 (a) of the
M.V. Act before the tribunal claiming compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle
accident that occurred on 30.05.2005 at about 10.00 P.M. near
Alfa college on Allagadda-Kadapa Road, while he and other coolies
were travelling in an auto bearing No.AP21-W-783 from
Yerraguntla to Allagadda and when the auto reached Alfa College
at Allagadda town, a mini lorry bearing No.AP21-U-4932 came in
opposite direction from Allagadda side proceeding towards
Kadapa side, the driver of the vehicle drove it in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed the auto, due to which, the
petitioner received grievous injuries and immediately he was
shifted to the Government Hospital, Allagadda, where he took
treatment and though he was referred to the Government General
Hospital Kurnool, he took treatment at Lakshmi Chaitanya
Orthopedic Hospital, Proddatur and underwent operation and
incurred an expenditure of Rs.40,000/- for the treatment and
medicines. The petitioner further submitted that, prior to the
accident, he was hale and healthy, aged 29 years, and as a coolie,
he was getting income of Rs.3,000/- per month, but due to his
sustaining injuries and taking treatment, he could not attend the
work, and thereby, he lost income. Hence, the claim petition
came to be filed.
4. The first respondent remained ex parte. The second
respondent filed counter denying the allegations made in the
petition and specifically contended that the insurance company is
not liable to pay the compensation. It is stated that the petitioner
was working as a coolie and he was getting income and due to his
sustaining injuries, he suffered loss of income and stated that the
petitioner took treatment at different places as mentioned in the
claim petition, he underwent operation and incurred expenditure
of Rs.40,000/- and also denied that the lorry was having valid
and permit. It is also denied that the amount claimed by the
petitioner is highly excessive and therefore prayed to dismiss the
claim petition.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash or
negligent driving of the driver of mini lorry bearing
No.AP21-U-4932 resulting in injuries to the
petitioner?
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if
so, to what amount and from which of the
respondents?
iii) To what relief?
6. To ssubstantiate his claim, the petitioner/claimant
examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4 and
Ex.X1 and Ex.X2. On behalf of the second respondent, no
witnesses are examined, and no documents were marked.
7. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the
Tribunal held that the respondents no.1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation amount and
accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.42,700/- as
compensation to be paid by the respondents no.1 and 2 with
costs and with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of deposit of amount. On such deposit, the
petitioner is entitled to withdraw entire amount. Challenging
the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is
filed by the appellant/claimant.
8. Heard Sri G. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant; Sri V. Sambasiva Rao and Sri Sravan Kumar
Mannava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits
that the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is
on lower side and seeks enhancement of the same and further
submits that the tribunal had not appreciated the evidences
produced and the documents, and awarded very less quantum
of compensation on each heads.
10. The learned counsel for the Respondents mainly
submits that the tribunal had rightly awarded the quantum of
compensation on each head and the appellant failed to file any
disability certificate issued from the District Medical Board and
not produced any income certificate. The tribunal properly
appreciated and awarded compensation as per Schedule-II.
11. In view of the above, this Court examined the evidence
and documents on record, though the tribunal found that the
appellant failed to file any disability certificate issued from the
District Medical Board. There is no dispute as to the occurrence
of the accident and the liability of the respondent/ insurer to pay
the compensation. In view of this admitted position, it is
unnecessary to narrate the factual aspects of the accident.
12. Section 168 of the M.V. Act deals with the concept of
'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the
foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability'. Although
such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect,
an endeavour should be made by the Court to award just and fair
compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the
appellant/s. In Sarla Verma and others v Delhi Transport
Corporation and another1, the Apex Court has laid down as
under:
"16. " ... 'Just compensation is adequate compensation
which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the
case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far
as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating
to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza,
largesse or source of profit."
(2009) 6 SCC 121
13. The provisions of the M. V. Act gives paramount
importance to the concept of 'just and fair' compensation, it is a
beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of
providing relief to the victims or their families.
14. In view of the same, I deem it appropriate to enhance
the compensation and considered to take income of the injured at
Rs.85/- (Rupees eight five only) per day. Accordingly, when the
income is considered as Rs. 85/- per day, as prescribed in
Schedule-II for the claims under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, it comes to Rs.5,100/- (i.e., Rs.85/- x 60 days
= Rs.5,100/-) towards loss of income for two months. Thus, the
appellant entitled to the following amounts towards total
compensation:
1. Loss of income Rs. 5,100-00
2. for grievous injury Rs. 20,000-00
3. For simple injury Rs. 2,400-00
4. Medical Bills Rs. 15,000-00
5. Extra nourishment Rs. 2,000-00
Total Rs. 44,500-00
15. Accordingly, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is allowed partly and the compensation awarded by the
tribunal is enhanced from Rs.42,700/- to Rs.44,500/- with
proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date
of claim petition till the date of realisation.
16. The respondents are directed to deposit the balance
amount within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the
appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount,
without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Appeal shall
stand closed.
___________________________
Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J
Date : 31 -01-2022
Gvl
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.2241 of 2011
Date : 31.01.2022
Gvl
