Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kalingiri Chinnanna vs B. Venkateswarlu And Another on 28 February, 2023
1 MACMA.NO.262 of 2012
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.262 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
The appellant is claimant in MVOP.No.219 of 2004
on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- V
Addl. District Judge Kurnool at Nandyal and the
respondents are the respondents 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.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained
by him in a motor vehicle accident, that occurred on
23.12.2003 at about 9:30 P.M.
4. The case of the claimant is that on 23.12.2003 at
about 8:30 P.M., while he was waiting for bus at
2 MACMA.NO.262 of 2012
Mahadevapuram, Metta to go to Nandyal for bringing
medicines to his wife, at that time the Auto bearing No.
AP 21 W 367, came from Gajulapalli side and he boarded
the said Auto to go to Nandyal at about 9:30 PM. While
the offending Auto reached Nandipalli Metta, the driver of
the Auto drove it with high speed in a rash and negligent
manner and lost control over the Auto and dashed to the
K.M. stone, as a result, the Auto turned turtle and
claimant received multiple injuries.
5. The 1st respondent remained ex parte.
6. The 2nd respondent filed a counter denying the
involvement of the offending Auto in the accident,
denying the manner of accident, denying the rashness
and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending
Auto.
3 MACMA.NO.262 of 2012
7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
the following issues:
1) Whether there is rash and negligence
on the part of driver of the vehicle Auto
bearing No. AP 21 W 367 in causing the
accident?
2)Whether the petitioner is entitled to
compensation? If so, to what amount
and from whom?
3) To what relief?
8. On behalf of the petitioner, petitioner examined
PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A9 and Ex.X1. On
behalf of second respondent, RW1 was examined and Ex.
B1 was marked.
4 MACMA.NO.262 of 2012
9. Now the point for consideration is:
1) Whether the Order of the learned Tribunal
needs any interference?
POINT:
10. Basing on the evidence produced by the claimant
and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal came to
conclusion that the accident is occurred due to rashness
and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Auto,
the claimant received injuries, against the said finding
the respondents are not prepared any appeal, therefore,
there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by
the Tribunal below.
11. As per the case of the petitioner, he used to work
as an agriculture coolie and earn Rs.100/- per day. On
considering the entire material on record the Tribunal
came to conclusion that the daily income of the petitioner
5 MACMA.NO.262 of 2012
is Rs.50/- per day, and monthly income of the petitioner
taken up as Rs.1500/-and the annual income is
Rs.18,000/-.
12. As per Ex.A3 the petitioner received four (4) injuries
on considering the evidence of Doctor, the Tribunal came
to conclusion that the claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.10,000/- for injury No.1 and the
claimant is entitled compensation of Rs.10,000/- for
injury No.2 and the claimant is entitled for compensation
of Rs.5,000/- for injury No.4 and the claimant is entitled
for compensation of Rs.1,500/- for injury No.3 and the
Tribunal after considering the material on record granted
compensation of Rs.26.500/- towards pain and suffering
for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor
vehicle accident.
6 MACMA.NO.262 of 2012
Therefore, there is no need interfere with the finding
given by the Tribunal.
13. On considering the Ex.A8 disability certificate on
considering the evidence of the Doctor, the Tribunal came
to conclusion that the claimant is suffering with
permanent disability of 10% and awarded Rs.30,000/-
compensation towards permanent disability and loss of
future income and loss of comforts by giving cogent
reasons. The Tribunal gave the said finding no appeal is
filed by the respondents against the said finding.
Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said
finding given by the Tribunal.
14. On considering the evidence of PW 1 and 2 coupled
with Ex.A5,A6,and A7, since the petitioner underwent 3
surgeries and on considering the Ex.A9 medical bills the
Tribunal came to conclusion that the claimant is entitled
Rs.23,500/- towards medical and transportation and
7 MACMA.NO.262 of 2012
attendant charges and in total the Tribunal granted
Rs.80.000/- towards compensation to the claimant. As
per Ex.B1 policy, the 1st respondent insured the
offending vehicle with the 2nd respondent and the policy
is also on force by the date of accident.
15. The Tribunal also held its order that as seen from
the evidence of PW3 and Ex.X1 extract of driving license,
the driver of the offending Auto is having valid and
effective driving license on considering the entire material
on record and after giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal
came to conclusion that the claimant is entitled
Rs.80,000/- towards compensation from the respondents,
therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings
given by the Tribunal. There are no merits in the present
appeal hence, this appeal is dismissed, by confirming the
order dated 07.03.2007 in MVOP.No.219 of 2004
8 MACMA.NO.262 of 2012
on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- V
Addl. District Judge Kurnool at Nandyal.
As sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
in this appeal shall stand closed.
______________________________
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J
Date:28.02.2023
KNN
