Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The vs District Judge on 24 July, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3513 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
The appellants are the Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.162 of 2001
on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- I Additional
District Judge, Chittoor and the respondents are the 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. Originally the 1st petitioner/injured filed a claim petition in the
year 2001 before the tribunal, subsequently during the pendency of
the case before the Tribunal, the injured/1st petitioner died, later his
legal representatives, who are parents, were brought on record as
petitioners 2 and 3 as per orders in I.A.No.193 of 2006, dated
19.04.2006.
The 1st claimant filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the
Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards
2 VGKRJ
MACMA 3513 of 2012
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle
Accident occurred on 18.01.1999.
4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:
The deceased was working as driver under one
K.V.Srinivasulu and earning Rs.3,000/- per month prior to the
accident. On 18.01.1999 at about 7.00 a.m. while the first petitioner
was proceeding on his motor cycle along with one Balaji as a pillion
rider from Kuppam to K.G.F. and when they reached near Abbai
Thopu, the driver of lorry bearing No.KA 01 8444 drove the same in
a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of
first petitioner, resulting which the petitioner No.1 sustained grievous
injuries and the pillion rider succumbed to injuries.
5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second
respondent filed counter denying the claim of the first claimant and
contended that the first claimant is not entitled any compensation
and the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to
the first petitioner.
3 VGKRJ
MACMA 3513 of 2012
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
i. Whether the accident in question was caused due
to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
lorry bearing No.KA 01 8444 or the petitioner
himself while riding motor cycle?
ii. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties?
iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any
compensation? if so, to what quantum?
7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf
of the petitioner(s), PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to
Ex.A4 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was
adduced on behalf of respondents.
8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the
evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal
has given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal
granted an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the claimants 2 and 3 towards
compensation.
4 VGKRJ
MACMA 3513 of 2012
9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants 2 and 3 filed the present
appeal 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 claimants/ appellants are entitled for
compensation as prayed for?
11. POINT Nos.1 and 2:-
In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the offending vehicle, the petitioners relied on the evidence of PW1
and PW2. PW1 is not an eye witness to the accident. PW2 is an
eye witness to the accident. He deposed in his evidence about the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle lorry.
The same is supported by Ex.A1 certified copy of First Information
Report and Ex.A2 certified copy of charge sheet. The evidence of
PW2 coupled with Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 clearly proves about the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry of the first respondent.
On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal came
5 VGKRJ
MACMA 3513 of 2012
to the same conclusion. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the
said finding given by the Tribunal.
12. Coming to the compensation, the Tribunal awarded an amount
of Rs.15,000/- to the claimants 2 and 3 towards compensation for
the injuries sustained by the first claimant/ injured. The first claimant
died during the pendency of the case and petitioners 2 and 3 are
brought on record being the legal representatives of the first
petitioner. As per the material available on record, the petitioner
No.1 sustained three grievous injuries. Ex.A3 certified copy of
wound certificate also supports the same. Therefore, an amount of
Rs.45,000/- is awarded towards three grievous injuries
@Rs.15,000/- for each grievous injury. The Tribunal, on
appreciation of entire evidence on record, came to conclusion that
the first petitioner underwent treatment in government and private
hospitals, therefore an amount of Rs.3,000/- is awarded towards
medical expenses. Since the first petitioner underwent treatment in
government and private hospitals, an amount of Rs.2,000/- is
awarded towards nutrition of food and transportation charges. In
total, the claimants are entitled an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards
6 VGKRJ
MACMA 3513 of 2012
compensation. Therefore, the claim amount is enhanced from
Rs.15,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.
13. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, modifying the order
dated 24.08.2006 passed in MVOP No.162/2001 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge,
Chittoor and the claim amount is enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to
Rs.50,000/-. The petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled the enhanced
compensation of Rs.35,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date
of petition, till the date of payment. The respondents 1 and 2 are
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest as
ordered above, before the Tribunal within two months from the date
of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners 2 and 3 are
entitled to withdraw the same equally. 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: 24.07.2023.
sj
7 VGKRJ
MACMA 3513 of 2012
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3513 of 2012
24.07.2023
sj
