Chavala Mayuri Raye Mayuri vs Narri Lingam Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 222 AP

BVLNC                                                MACMA 532 of 2016
Page 1 of 12                                         Dt:19.01.2023




       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.532 OF 2016

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the claimant, challenging the

award dated 01.10.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1376/2012 on the file

of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl.District Judge,

Guntur, (for short 'the Tribunal'), wherein the Tribunal partly allowed

the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.28,000/- with interest @ 9%

p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation for the injuries

sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident.

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

parties in the M.V.O.P.

3. As seen from the record, the petitioner filed the application

U/s.163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act")

claiming a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of the injuries

and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident

that occurred on 11.09.2012.

4. The facts would show that on 11.09.2012 at about 03.30 p.m.

while she was proceeding from Ballikurava to Ambadipudi in auto

bearing No.AP 27 TT 4227, when it reached Guntupalli main road, the BVLNC MACMA 532 of 2016 Page 2 of 12 Dt:19.01.2023

driver of lorry bearing No.AP 29 TB 2225, drove the same in a rash and

negligent manner, at high speed and hit the auto, as a result, she

sustained injuries, and immediately she was shifted to Government

Hospital, Chilakaluripet and later to Government General Hospital,

Guntur. The said accident was reported in Ballikurava Police Station

and a case in Cr.No.86/2012 was registered against the driver of lorry

bearing No.AP 29 TB 2225. The petitioner was hale and healthy prior

to the accident and due to the injuries suffered in the accident, she

suffered disability, loss of income, pain and suffering. The

1st respondent is owner of lorry bearing No.AP 29 TB 2225,

2nd respondent is insurer and both the respondents are jointly and

severally liable for compensation.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company,

filed written statement, while traversing the material averments with

regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the

driver of the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, age

and avocation of the petitioner, alleged permanent disability, liability to

pay compensation, and contended that the driver of 1st respondent was

not having valid and effective driving license during accident and the

accident took place due to collision of auto and lorry of 1st respondent.

The petition is bad for non-impleadment of owner and insurer of auto, BVLNC MACMA 532 of 2016 Page 3 of 12 Dt:19.01.2023

and the claim of petitioner is excessive, and there is no negligence on

the part of driver of 1st respondent. The 1st respondent remained

exparte.

6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal

framed the following issues:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident caused by vehicle bearing No.AP 29 TB 2225?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom?

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate her claim, the petitioner examined P.Ws-1 and 2

and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 and Ex.X-1. No oral or documentary

evidence was adduced on behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance

Company.

8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1

and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-4 and Ex.X-1, held that the

petitioner sustained injuries in the accident on 11.09.2012 out of the

user of lorry of 1st respondent, and further taking into consideration

the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-4 and BVLNC MACMA 532 of 2016 Page 4 of 12 Dt:19.01.2023

Ex.X-1, awarded a compensation of Rs.28,000/- with interest @ 9%

p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit.

9. This is an appeal filed by the claimant against the order

01.10.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1376/2012 on the file of Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl.District Judge, Guntur, on the

ground that the Tribunal did not award just compensation inspite of

evidence of the doctor, who was examined as P.W-2, and deposed

about the disability suffered by the claimant and therefore, the

Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards compensation

under the head loss of earning capacity, and the Tribunal also erred in

awarding only Rs.5,000/- under the head pain and suffering.

10. In the light of above contention raised by the appellant in the

appeal , the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are

as under:

1. Whether the Tribunal did not award just compensation to the appellant/claimant?

2. To what relief?

11. POINT No.1:

The case of the appellant/claimant is that the claimant is aged

around 22 years, and working as coolie on 11.09.2012 at about 04.00 BVLNC MACMA 532 of 2016 Page 5 of 12 Dt:19.01.2023

p.m. while the claimant and others were travelling in an auto, and

when the auto reached a place near main road, Guntupalli, a lorry

came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed

the auto, and as a result, the claimant sustained injuries and she was

shifted to Chilakaluripet, and later to Government General Hospital,

Guntur, for better treatment. Police registered a case against the driver

of the lorry for the offence punishable U/s.338 of Indian Penal Code,

and later laid police report (charge sheet) against the driver of the lorry

for the offence punishable U/s.338 of Indian Penal Code. The claimant

suffered grievous injuries including fracture and crush injury to her

left leg, and she spent large amount for treatment, and that she

suffered pain and trauma due to injury sustained in the accident, and

she also suffered permanent disability due to the injury to her left leg,

and she is unable to do any work, and also unable to walk properly

and therefore, she filed the petition claiming Rs.1,50,000/- towards

just compensation.

12. The insurer of the lorry opposed the claim on the ground that

the accident was occurred due to composite negligence of the driver of

the auto and the lorry, and that the claim is excessive.

 BVLNC                                             MACMA 532 of 2016
Page 6 of 12                                      Dt:19.01.2023

13. The Tribunal upon consideration of the evidence of the claimant,

and the documents produced by her, held that the accident was

occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the lorry.

14. The Tribunal upon consideration of the claimant as P.W-1 and

the doctor, who was examined as P.W-2, held that there is no material

produced by the claimant to prove the disability and the evidence of

P.W-2, will not help the case of the claimant without disability

certificate and did not award any amount under the head of loss of

earning on account of permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded a

sum of Rs.10,000/- for the injuries; Rs.5,000/- towards pain and

suffering; Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance and special diet charges;

Rs.3,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment, in

all Rs.28,000/- out of the claim amount of RS.1,50,000/-.

15. The Learned counsel for appellant/claimant vehemently argued

that the claimant has examined the doctor, who treated her as P.W-2

and his evidence established that the claimant suffered a lacerated

wound over lateral aspect of left ankle, and x-ray revealed fracture

lateral malleolus of left ankle, and the doctor opined that the claimant

suffered permanent partial disability of 10%, and the claimant proved

the injuries sustained by her are grievous in nature, and also proved BVLNC MACMA 532 of 2016 Page 7 of 12 Dt:19.01.2023

the permanent partial disability suffered by her and therefore, the

finding of the Tribunal is not based on evidence.

16. The claimant in her chief-examination stated that she received

injuries including fracture and crush injury to her left leg and as a

result, she suffered disability, and as a result, she suffered disability

and she is unable to do any hard work, as she is not able to walk

properly due to the injuries. In the cross-examination, it was elicited

that the claimant has been experiencing pain and she is not doing any

work due to pain in the leg, and prior to the accident, she was working

as coolie.

17. P.W-2 is a doctor. His evidence would establish that on

12.09.2012 the claimant was admitted in Government General

Hospital, Guntur, and she suffered 10 x 2 cm. lacerated wound over

lateral aspect of left ankle, and x-ray was taken for the injury, and it

revealed fracture lateral malleolus of left ankle, and she was treated

conservatively, and discharged on 28.09.2012, and he examined the

claimant in the Court premises on the date of his evidence, and he

found mild to moderate restriction in left ankle movements and mild

deformity of left ankle, and he is of the opinion that the claimant is

having permanent partial disability of 10%. In the cross-examination, BVLNC MACMA 532 of 2016 Page 8 of 12 Dt:19.01.2023

it was elicited that the claimant will face difficulty in lifting weights,

though she can attend normal activities.

18. In the light of above evidence of the claimant, and the doctor,

who treated her, it is established that the claimant suffered a fracture

and crush injury to her left leg in the accident, and she was admitted

in Government General Hospital, Guntur, on 12.09.2012 and as

in-patient she was treated for the injury and discharged on

28.09.2012, and the evidence of P.W-2 further established that there is

a mild to moderate restriction of left ankle movement and mild

deformity of left ankle, due to the fracture of left ankle sustained in the

accident, and on account of the said injury, she will face difficulty in

lifting weights. Therefore, it is established that the claimant will face

some inconvenience while attending her coolie work which she was

attending without any pain prior to the date of accident, and further,

she is facing some mild to moderate restrictions of left ankle

movements due to injury.

19. In that view of the matter, she can be awarded some

compensation under the loss of amenities, though she can attend

coolie work after healing of the injury, and there is no loss of earnings

on account of the injury, in view of the principles laid down by the BVLNC MACMA 532 of 2016 Page 9 of 12 Dt:19.01.2023

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and

another1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "in routine

personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads

(i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is

specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that

compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and

(vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability,

future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of

marriage) and loss of expectation of life can be awarded", in addition to

the amount awarded by the Tribunal.

20. Considering the above facts and inconvenience faced by the

claimant on account of the restricted movements of the left ankle and

mild deformity of the left ankle, an amount of Rs.75,000/- can be

awarded to the claimant under the head loss of amenities, in addition

to Rs.28,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

21. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of

petition, till the date of realisation. The accident occurred in the year

2012, and the claimant filed petition in the year 2012. Hon'ble Apex

2011 (1) SCC 343 BVLNC MACMA 532 of 2016 Page 10 of 12 Dt:19.01.2023

Court in the case of Jakir Hussein Vs. Sabir2 which referred another

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of

Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy3 granted

interest @ 9% p.a.

22. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any ground to

interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a.

from the date of petition, till the date of deposit of compensation

amount. Accordingly, the point is answered.

23. POINT No.2: To what relief?

In the light of findings on points No.1, the order passed by the

Tribunal is liable to be modified.

24. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the award

dated 01.10.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1376/2012 on the file of

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl.District Judge, Guntur.

It is held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of

Rs.1,03,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Three Thousand only) with

interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit,

instead of Rs.28,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand only). The

(2015) 7 SCC 2154

(2011) 14 SC 481 BVLNC MACMA 532 of 2016 Page 11 of 12 Dt:19.01.2023

respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the

compensation amount. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is

directed to deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.1,03,000/-

(Rupees One Lakh and Three Thousand only), along with the accrued

interest thereon, within one month from the date of judgment.

25. In the event of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company already

deposited some amount, the said amount has to be excluded, and the

balance amount shall be deposited within one month from the date of

judgment. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to

withdraw an amount of Rs.1,03,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Three

Thousand only) along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no

order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

                                    _____________________________
                                     B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J
19.01.2023

psk
 BVLNC                                   MACMA 532 of 2016
Page 12 of 12                            Dt:19.01.2023




       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI




                M.A.C.M.A.No.532 OF 2016




                   19th January, 2023


psk