The vs District Judge
2023 Latest Caselaw 3827 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No. 624 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

The appellant is claimant in M.V.O.P.No.997 of 2007 on the

file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal

District Judge, Vizianagaram and the respondents are respondents

in the said case.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will

be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the

Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards

compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle

accident that occurred on 03.03.2007.

4. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

VGKR,J MACMA No.624 of 2012

The petitioner, who is a resident of Chandrampeta village,

Nellimarla Mandal, boarded a jeep bearing registration No.AP 35T

8498 to go to Srikakulam and the said jeep was driven by the 1 st

respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and the

jeep dashed against a car near Thallavalasa junction at 5.30 p.m.,

as a result, the petitioner sustained multiple fractures on left hand

and other injuries all over the body. The 1st respondent is driver, the

2nd respondent is owner and the 3rd respondent is insurer of the

offending jeep, Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally

liable to pay compensation.

5. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 were set ex parte.

6. The 3rd respondent/Insurance company filed a written

statement by denying the manner of accident, injuries sustained by

the petitioner and the treatment taken by her.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues for trial:

VGKR,J MACMA No.624 of 2012

1. Whether the accident was occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner viz., Moida Chandramma due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (jeep) bearing No.AP 35T 8498 by its driver-1st respondent?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

8. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of

the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 and

Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, no

oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B.1 was got marked.

9. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the

evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal

allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.1,03,878/-

towards compensation to the claimant. Being aggrieved by the

impugned award, the claimant preferred the appeal for

enhancement of compensation.

VGKR,J MACMA No.624 of 2012

10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the

record.

11. Now, the points for determination are:

1) Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for? and

2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference?

12. POINT Nos.1 and 2 : The material on record reveals that the

accident occurred due to pure rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending jeep. The learned Tribunal, by giving cogent

reasons and considering the evidence of the injured/claimant, came

to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. No appeal

was filed by the respondents against the order of the Tribunal.

Therefore, this Court feels that there is no infirmity in the said finding

given by the Tribunal.

VGKR,J MACMA No.624 of 2012

13. The claimant sustained severe grievous injuries. On

considering the medical evidence and Ex.A.2-wound certificate and

the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, an amount of Rs.45,000/- is awarded

towards pain and suffering by the Tribunal. On considering Ex.A.5-

bunch of medical bills, an amount of Rs.4,878/- is awarded towards

medical expenses. On considering the material available on record,

an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards special diet and

nutrition by the Tribunal. Since the claimant sustained serious

grievous injuries and he is unable to do any work for a period of two

months, an amount of Rs.9,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal

towards loss of earnings for the period of treatment of three months.

The compensation granted by the Tribunal under the above heads is

just and reasonable, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the

quantum of compensation awarded under the above heads.

14. The case of the claimant is that he sustained disability of 30%

and he relied on Ex.A.7 and the evidence of P.W.2 support Ex.A.7-

disability certificate. The claimant examined the doctor, who treated

her, as P.W.2. On considering the facts and circumstances of the

VGKR,J MACMA No.624 of 2012

case and on considering the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A.7, the

Tribunal awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.40,000/- under the head

of non-pecuniary damages. On considering the grievous injuries

sustained by the petitioner and also the petitioner underwent

treatment in MIMS Hospital, Nellimarla and also KGH,

Visakhapatnam, I am of the considered view that the said amount of

Rs.40,000/- awarded under non-pecuniary damages is enhanced to

Rs.60,000/-. Since the petitioner underwent treatment in various

hospitals and operations were also conducted and plates were also

fixed and at the time of discharge also, the doctors advised her to

take further treatment, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards

loss of amenities and Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards transportation

charges. In total the claimant is entitled to an amount of

Rs.1,53,878/- towards compensation.

15. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle of the 2nd

respondent was insured with the 3rd respondent/Insurance company

under Ex.B.1 policy, the policy was also in force as on the date of

the accident, and the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid

VGKR,J MACMA No.624 of 2012

driving licence at the time of accident. Since the 1st respondent is

driver and agent of the 2nd respondent and the offending vehicle was

insured with the 3rd respondent/Insurance company, the 3rd

respondent has to indemnify the 2nd respondent.

16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the

compensation from Rs.1,03,878/- awarded by the Tribunal to

Rs.1,53,878/-. The 3rd respondent/Insurance company is directed to

deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.50,000/-, with interest at

6% p.a. from the date of petition till 11.04.2008 and from 15.02.2011

till realization before the Tribunal within two months from the date of

this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw

the same with interest thereon. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

appeals shall stand closed.

_______________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J th 8 August, 2023 cbs

VGKR,J MACMA No.624 of 2012

sHON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No. 624 of 2012

8th August, 2023 cbs