Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bheemanapalli Vasanthi , Nellore ... vs P. Mohamood Khan Another on 22 February, 2023
1 MACMA.NO.1160 of 2012
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.1160 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
The appellant is claimant in M.V.O.P.No.304 of 2004
on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Prl. District
Judge, Nellore, and the respondent is the respondent in
the said case.
2. The parties in the appeal will be referred to as they
are arrayed in the claim application.
3. The claimant has filed a claim petition is filed under
section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act for seeking
compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the injuries received
by the minor petitioner in a road accident, that occurred
on 05.03.2004 at about 3:00 P.M.
4. The case of the claimant is that on 05.03.2004 at
about 3:00 P.M., the petitioner was proceeding towards
bore well near the road, the bus bearing No. AP 26 U
5307 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
2 MACMA.NO.1160 of 2012
against the petitioner as a result of which the petitioner
received multiple injuries.
5. The 1st respondent remained ex parte., and the 2nd
respondent filed a counter denying the rashness and
negligence attributed to the driver of the bus.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
the following issues:
1) Whether the accident occurred out of
the use of the motor vehicle of
respondent No.1?
2)Whether the petitioner is entitled to
compensation? If so, to what amount
and from which of the respondents?
3) To what relief?
7. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 are
examined and marked Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of the
respondents, Ex.B1 insurance policy is marked.
3 MACMA.NO.1160 of 2012
8. Now the point for consideration is:
1) Whether the claimant for injured is entitled the
compensation Rs.2,50,000/- as prayed by the
claimant?
2) Whether the Order of the learned Tribunal
needs any interference and the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, is just and reasonable?
POINT NO.1 & 2:
9. The claim petitioner is a minor aged about 12 years,
and PW1 is the paternal uncle of the petitioner and he
narrated in the evidence about the receipt of injuries by
the claimant in a motor accident. The evidence of PW2
clearly goes to shows that the petitioner was going to the
bore well, at that time the bus bearing No. AP 26 U 5307
came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the
petitioner.
4 MACMA.NO.1160 of 2012
10. As per Ex.A1 attested copy of F.I.R and Ex.A9
certified copy of charge sheet, clearly goes to show the
accident was occurred rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the bus bearing No. AP 26 U 5307, the Tribunal
gave a finding on the basis of material available in the
Tribunal, that the accident is occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No. AP
26 U 5307 No appeal is filed against the said finding
given by the respondents.
11. The Learned Tribunal granted compensation of
Rs.60,000/-, even though the claimant claimed
Rs.2,50,000/-, aggrieved against the said order, claimant
filed the present application the respondents have not
filed any appeal against the said order.
12. On perusal of the order of the learned Tribunal, the
Tribunal gave a finding that the petitioner/claimant
received three injuries all the injuries are grievous in
nature and Ex.A2 copy of wound certificate also clearly
5 MACMA.NO.1160 of 2012
goes to show that the petitioner sustained three grievous
injuries in a motor vehicles accident. But the learned
Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the
head of pain and suffering but no compensation is
awarded for three grievous injuries. Therefore, in
addition to the amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and
suffering as granted by the learned Tribunal, an amount
Rs.24,000/- is awarded for three grievous injuries (the
compensation of Rs.8,000/- is awarded for each grievous
injuries) the Tribunal gave a finding that Ex.A4 clearly
goes to show Rs.38,000/- an amount was paid to the
hospital authorities and the claimant undergone
treatment for ten days, but the Tribunal granted
Rs.35,000/- for medical expenses and attendant charges
the said finding given by the Tribunal is also not correct,
the Tribunal came to conclusion that Ex.A4 final bill
shows that an amount of Rs.38,000/- is incurred
towards medical expenses, therefore, an amount of
Rs.38,000/-is awarded to the claimant towards medical
6 MACMA.NO.1160 of 2012
expenses. Since claimant is a tender age minor aged
about 12 years, and she was in hospitalized for a period
of ten days, therefore an amount of Rs.1000/- is awarded
to the petitioner/claimant towards nutrition of food,
therefore, the claimant is entitled in total amount
Rs.88,000/-, as per Ex.B1 the crime vehicle bus is
insured with 2nd respondent insurance company and
also policy is also on force the said finding is not
challenged by the insurance company. The award dated
26.08.2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.304 of 2004 on the file
of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Prl. District Judge,
Nellore, is modified accordingly.
13. In the result appeal is allowed in part by modifying
the order passed dated 26.08.2006 passed in
M.V.O.P.No.304 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal Prl. District Judge, Nellore.
14. It is held the appellant is entitled total
compensation of Rs.88,000/- with interest @ 7.5% P.A.,
7 MACMA.NO.1160 of 2012
on the enhanced claim, from the date of petition till the
date of payment the respondents are directed to deposit
the balance of amount within one (1) month from the
date of the Judgment on such deposit the appellant is
entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued interest
there on.
15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part to the
extent stated above.
16. As Sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
in this appeal shall stand closed.
______________________________
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J
Date:22.02.2023
KNN
