Bangaru Muthu Krishnama Raju vs K. Gopalaiah And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1081 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.1355 of 2012


JUDGEMENT:

The appellant is the Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.142 of 2003 on

the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl.District Judge,

Nellore and the respondents are the respondents in the said case.

2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are

arrayed in claim application.

3. The claimant filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award

an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- towards compensation to the injuries

sustained by the petitioner in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on

17.04.1999.

4. The case of the claimant is that on 17.04.1999 when the

petitioner was going in the bus bearing No.AP 26 T 6009 to

Rameswaram and when the bus was reached near Kothankulam,

the same was over turned due to rash and negligent driving of its

driver, resulting which, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries and VGKRJ MACMA 1355 of 2012 Page 2 of 7 Dt:23.02.2023

the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- towards

compensation.

5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second

respondent filed counter denying the claim application and

contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and

the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the

injuries sustained by the petitioner.

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

following issues:

i. Whether the pleaded accident was occurred resulting the injuries of the petitioner and if so was it due to the fault of the bus bearing registration No.AP 26 T 6009?

ii. Whether the bus bearing No.AP 26 T 6009 was validly insured by the date of accident and if so whether the policy covers the risk of the injured? iii. Whether the claimant is in principle entitled to compensation and if so what amount and from which of the respondents?

iv.     To what relief?
 VGKRJ                                                 MACMA 1355 of 2012
Page 3 of 7                                           Dt:23.02.2023

7. On behalf of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined

and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced

on behalf of respondents, however, Ex.B1 was marked.

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has

given a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal granted an

amount of Rs.35,000/- to the claimant towards compensation.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal

by claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount.

10. Now, the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference?

              2. Whether   the   claimant        is     entitled     for
                enhancement of claim as prayed for?

11.     POINT Nos.1 and 2:-

The case of the petitioner is that on 17.04.1999 when the

petitioner was going in a bus bearing No.AP 26 T 6009 to

Rameswaram, near Kothankulam, due to rash and negligent driving

of the driver of bus, it over turned and the petitioner received VGKRJ MACMA 1355 of 2012 Page 4 of 7 Dt:23.02.2023

multiple injuries and he was treated at Chennai and operated and he

spent an amount of Rs.25,000/- for treatment. In order to prove the

claim of the petitioner, the petitioner himself examined as PW1. His

evidence clearly goes to show that the accident was occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. In order

to prove the contention of the petitioner, the petitioner relied on

Ex.A1 attested copy of First Information Report and Ex.A3 attested

copy of charge sheet.

12. The evidence of PW1 i.e., injured person coupled with Ex.A1

and Ex.A3 clearly goes to show that the accident was occurred due

to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus in which the

petitioner received injuries. The Tribunal came to conclusion that

the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the bus. The respondents have not challenged the said

finding and no cross appeal was filed by the respondents.

13. In order to prove the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner

relied on his self-testimony as PW1 and also got examined the

doctor, who treated him as PW2. The evidence of PW1 goes to

show that he suffered fracture injuries. The evidence of PW2 VGKRJ MACMA 1355 of 2012 Page 5 of 7 Dt:23.02.2023

coupled with documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A4 case sheet issued

by Government General Hospital, Chennai, Ex.A5 patient record

card issued by Government General Hospital, Chennai, clearly goes

to show that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on

19.04.1999 and discharged on 18.05.1999 and the petitioner was as

an inpatient for about 30 days in the hospital and the petitioner

received fractures to the both pelvic bones and the above injuries

are grievous in nature. But the Tribunal granted compensation of

Rs.25,000/- only towards pain and suffering but no compensation

was awarded for grievous injuries. Therefore, on considering the

evidence of PW2, Ex.A4 and Ex.A5, this Court feels that an amount

of Rs.25,000/- has to be awarded to the petitioner towards grievous

injuries, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal,

because he suffered with fracture injuries and hospitalized for about

30 days. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/-

towards medical expenses and attendance. There is no need to

interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. There is no

documentary proof to show that the petitioner is suffering from

disability. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

enhanced from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.60,000/-.

 VGKRJ                                            MACMA 1355 of 2012
Page 6 of 7                                      Dt:23.02.2023

14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in-part, by modifying the

order dated 08.03.2006 passed in MVOPNo.142/2003 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl.District Judge, Nellore.

It is held that the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of

Rs.60,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a. on the enhanced

compensation, from the date of petition, till the date of payment.

The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the balance

amount within one month from the date of this judgment. On such

deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same along with

accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

________________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J Dated: 23.02.2023.

sj
 VGKRJ                                    MACMA 1355 of 2012
Page 7 of 7                              Dt:23.02.2023

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.1355 of 2012

23.02.2023

sj