Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Sale Yugandhar Yugandhar Reddy vs M.Shafi Ahmed 3 Ors on 16 September, 2022

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

                       MACMA.No.182 OF 2012

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2006 in MVOP.No.137 of

2005 passed by the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

- Cum - II Additional District Judge Madanapalli (for short 'the

Tribunal'), the appellant who is the petitioner in MVOP.No.137 of

2005 filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation

amount awarded by the Tribunal.

2. For convenience sake, hereinafter the parties will be referred to

as they were arrayed in MVOP.No.137 of 2005.

3. The claim in MVOP.No.137 of 2005 is filed under Sec.166 (1) of

Motor Vehicle Act claiming for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-

along with interest for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in

a motor vehicle accident.

4. It is the case of the claimant/petitioner that on 17.09.2004 at

about 03.00PM while he was going in the Auto Rikshaw bearing

registration number AP30U1980 (will be referred as 'offending

vehicle') belonging to the 3rd respondent which was insured with

the 4th respondent, a lorry bearing registration Number

TN29O5979 (will be referred as second offending vehicle')

MACMA.No.182 OF 2012

belonging to the 1st respondent which was insured with the 2nd

respondent being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent

manner dashed it due to which two persons died and the

petitioner sustained simple as well as grievous injuries.

5. The respondents 2 and 4 filed common written statement and 3 rd

respondent filed separate written statement denying the

allegations made in the petition by contending that there was no

negligence on the part of their respective drivers.

6. On behalf of claimants PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1

to A8 documents are marked and on behalf of respondents RW.1

examined and Exs.B1 and B2 documents were marked.

7. After considering the evidence on record the tribunal held that

accident in question was happened due to rash and negligent

driving of second offending vehicle by its driver, resulting

injuries to the petitioner and allowed the petition in part

awarding compensation of Rs.45,000/- to the petitioner by

directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the compensation

amount and the petition is dismissed against the respondents 3

and 4.

8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellant and the

respondent and perused the record.

MACMA.No.182 OF 2012

9. The main contention of the appellant is that the learned Tribunal

failed to see the record place before it and the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre and it has to be

increased as claimed in the claim petition.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the

findings and observations of the leaned Tribunal.

11. Now the point for determination is whether the award passed by

the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable and it requires

enhancement ?

POINT:

12. After considering the appeal grounds and submissions made on

behalf of both sides it can be seen that there is no dispute as to

the occurrence of the accident and the liability of the

respondents 1 and 2 to pay the compensation amount as the

respondents 1 and 2 have not preferred any appeal or cross

objections questioning the findings or observations made by the

learned tribunal and the said findings became final. Both

counsels addressed their arguments only on the quantum of

compensation and in view of this admitted position it is

unnecessary to narrate the factual aspects of the case in detail.

MACMA.No.182 OF 2012

13. As seen from the award passed by the tribunal it has granted

compensation amount of Rs.12,500/- for one grievous injury

and Rs.3,000/- for two simple injuries, Rs.10,000/- for medical

expenses, extra nourishment, transport and Rs.19,500/-

towards pain and suffering. The compensation awarded by the

tribunal under various heads as referred above is not challenged

by the respondents.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the

evidence of PW.2 Dr.M.Sanjeeva Rayudu shows that the

petitioner sustained two fracture injuries in the incident in

question. I have carefully gone through the evidence of PW.2 who

deposed that the petitioner sustained injuries i.e., (1) open

fracture shaft of left femur, (2) undisplaced fracture of middle

third of right tibia. His examination shows that mal-united

fracture of left femur and claimant is not able to bend left knee

joint and he may require another surgery for fracture shaft of left

femur. It is pertinent to note that the said evidence of PW.2 goes

unchallenged. In view of the same this court is of view that the

petitioner has to undergo for another surgery and by taking into

consideration of the same this court is of view that the tribunal

ought to have awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards

further medical treatment.

MACMA.No.182 OF 2012

15. As already observed the petitioner also sustained un-displaced

fracture of middle third right tibia. However, the evidence of

PW.2 shows that the right tibia fracture is united. The said

evidence of PW.2 is also not disputed. Thus it establishes that

the petitioner sustained two fracture injuries, but the tribunal

granted only Rs.12,500/- by observing that he sustained one

grievous injury only. In the said set of facts, this court is of view

that a further amount of Rs.12,500/- is to be awarded for

second grievous injury sustained by the petitioner.

16. By considering the nature of injuries this court is of view that

there is every possibility of not attending works by the petitioner

for a period of four months. But, the tribunal has not awarded

any amount towards loss of earnings. The tribunal observed that

the petitioner has not placed any evidence to show his earnings

at Rs.4,500/- per month. The evidence of PW.1 shows that he

was earning Rs.4,500/- per month by the date of accident, by

way of attending clerical works and doing business. Nothing is

elicited in cross-examination to dispute his evidence. It is also

not possible to prove the said fact by producing documentary

evidence. After careful reading of evidence of PW.1 this court is

inclined to accept the said evidence of PW.1 regarding his

MACMA.No.182 OF 2012

earnings. In view of the same this court is of view that an

amount of Rs.18,000/- to be awarded towards loss of earnings.

17. For the above reasons apart from the compensation amount

awarded by the Tribunal petitioner is also entitled the

compensation amount under the following heads.

i. For second grievous injury Rs.12,500/-

       ii.   Loss of earnings                                     Rs.18,000/-


      iii.   For further medical expenses                          Rs.10,000/-
                                                                  -----------------
                                             Total                 Rs. 40,500/-
                                                                  -----------------

18. For the reasons stated above this court is of view that petitioner

is entitled to enhancement compensation amount of Rs.40,500/-

and thereby he is entitled for total compensation amount of

Rs.45,000/- + 40,500/- = Rs.85,500/- together with interest as

awarded by the tribunal.

19. Resultantly the appeal is partly allowed without costs by fixing

the compensation amount of at Rs.85,500/- by enhancing from

Rs.45,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The

insurance company is directed to deposit the balance

compensation amount within one month from the date of this

order. In all other aspects the order passed by the Tribunal is

MACMA.No.182 OF 2012