K.Rajani vs G.Dasthagiri
2022 Latest Caselaw 8049 AP

       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO


                   MACMA. No.2126 OF 2013


JUDGMENT:

1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Chairman,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District

Judge, Tirupati (for short 'the Tribunal') by an order dated

13.03.2009 in MVOP No.379 of 2007, the claimant has preferred

this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the MV OP.

3. The claimant has filed a claim petition under Section 166 (1) (a)

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for compensation of Rs.75,000/-

for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 27.12.2005 at about 11.00 AM. While she was

proceeding on a motorcycle as a pillion rider, a Mahindra vehicle

bearing Re.No.AP 04/U 8447 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

offending vehicle) driven by its driver in a rash and negligent

manner hit the motorcycle and thereby sustained injuries. She

was shifted to SVRR GG hospital, Tirupati, for treatment.

4. The first respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle, has

remained ex-parte.

MACMA_2126_2013

5. The second respondent/insurance company has filed its counter

denying the mode of the accident, age, income, and occupation

of the claimant and contending that the rider of the motorcycle

was negligent in driving the motorcycle and that there was no

negligence on the part of the first respondent.

6. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues.

During the trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 got

examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 . on behalf of the second

respondent, a copy of the policy was marked as Ex.B.1, but no

oral evidence was let in.

7. After considering oral and documentary evidence and on hearing

both the learned counsel, the tribunal held that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending

vehicle and awarded compensation an amount of Rs.5,250/- to

the claimant together with proportionate costs and interest at

7.5% per annum.

8. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the

compensation amount awarded by the tribunal is just and

reasonable and whether it requires any enhancement.

MACMA_2126_2013

POINT:

9. The claimant herself was examined as P.W.1 to prove her case;

she has deposed about the manner of the accident. The tribunal

held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the offending vehicle. The respondents have not

disputed the correctness of the finding given by the tribunal by

preferring the appeal or cross-objections. Thus, the finding given

by the tribunal attained finality.

10. Now the dispute is only concerning the quantum of the

compensation amount. The claimant relied on Ex.A.3-wound

certificate to prove the injuries, loosening of central incisors,

tenderness over the middle 1/3rd of the right thigh, and abrasion

of ½ x ½ cm over the left knee.

11. The tribunal observed that, as the claimant sustained the three

injuries mentioned above, she must have suffered pain during

treatment. As seen from the record, the claimant examined Dr.A.

Sudhakar Reddy as P.W.2 to establish that she sustained

disability in the accident and has marked Ex.A.5-permanent

disability certificate. The tribunal observed that the claimant did

not choose to obtain a disability certificate from the District

Medical Board. It further observed that in the claim petition,

MACMA_2126_2013

there is no mention of the treatment given by P.W.2 at any point

in time. P.W.2, in his evidence, also did not mention the date on

which the claimant came to the hospital for treatment. In the

facts of the case, the tribunal observed that had the claimant

obtained treatment under P.W.2 after her discharge from SVRR

GG hospital, Tirupati, she would have stated so in the petition

that was filed long after the date of the accident. By giving cogent

and convincing reasons, the tribunal disbelieved the evidence of

P.W.1 about the treatment provided by P.W.2. After considering

evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 as well as the reasons given by the

tribunal, this Court concludes that the tribunal has rightly

discarded evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 regarding permanent

disability said to be sustained by pw1

12. From the material on record, it can observe that the second

respondent/insurance company has not disputed the three

injuries sustained by the claimant, of which injury No.1 is shown

to be the loosening of the central incisors. According to the

evidence of P.W.2 and as per Ex.A.3-wound certificate, the

injuries sustained by the claimant are simple. According to

P.W.2, injury No.1, loosening the central incisors, is grievous.

Admittedly, P.W.2 has not given the wound certificate. As already

MACMA_2126_2013

observed, the tribunal disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2

regarding the treatment given by P.W.2. Though P.W.2 has

supported the claimant's case, the tribunal has not inclined to

accept it concerning the nature of the injury, i.e., loosening the

central incisors is grievous. However, the tribunal awarded

compensation of Rs.3,000/- towards pain and suffering towards

three simple injuries sustained by the claimant. This Court is of

the view that as it is established that the claimant suffered

loosening of the central incisors, the compensation amount

awarded by the tribunal under the head of pain, suffering and

injuries is considered to be meagre.

13. In the facts of the case, this Court is inclined to enhance the

compensation amount, particularly considering the nature of

injury No.1 said to be sustained by the claimant, which is

loosening the central incisors. After carefully reading the material

on record, this Court views that the tribunal ought to have

granted compensation amount of Rs.6,000/- towards pain and

suffe`ring caused by three simple injuries. For the reasons stated

above, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation under

the head pain and suffering to Rs.6,000/- from Rs.3000/.

MACMA_2126_2013

14. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed without costs

enhancing the compensation amount of Rs.8,250/- from

Rs.5,250/- with interest as awarded by the tribunal. In other

respects, the order dated 13.03.2009 in MVOP No.379 of 2007

passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, holds good. The 2nd

respondent is directed to deposit the balance of the compensation

amount within a month of receiving a copy of this order. On

deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the total

compensation and interest.

15. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand closed.

-------------------------------------

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J

Dt.28.10.2022 BV