Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The vs Judge (Ftc) on 26 June, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.137 of 2014
JUDGEMENT:
The appellant is the Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.63 of 2008 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- III Additional District
Judge (FTC), Bhimavaram 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. The claimant filed a Claim Petition under section 166 and 163
(A) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the
Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle
Accident occurred on 23.08.2006.
4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:
On 23.08.2006 at about 9.30 a.m. while the petitioner along
with cousin Sri Venkata Satyanarayana was going on Bajaj Scooter
2 VGKRJ
MACMA 137 of 2014
bearing No.AP 37 E 2112, driven by the petitioner, the driver of
auto bearing No.AP 10 V 3331 drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the scooter of petitioner,
resulting which the petitioner and his cousin sustained severe
injuries and the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-
towards compensation.
5. The first and second respondents remained exparte. The third
respondent filed counter disputing the injury sustained by the
petitioner, his age, income, validity of driving licence and permit and
fitness certificate of the vehicle and further pleaded that the claimant
is not entitled any compensation from the third respondent.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
i. Whether the petitioner-injured sustained injuries in
a motor vehicle accident on 23.08.2006 due to rash
and negligent driving of the Auto Truck (Mini Van)
bearing No.AP 10 V 3331, driven by its driver- 1st
respondent?
3 VGKRJ
MACMA 137 of 2014
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
which of the respondents?
iii. To what relief?
7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf
of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6
were marked. None were examined on behalf of respondents,
however Ex.B1 was marked.
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.50,000/- to the claimant towards
compensation.
9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal
claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount.
10. Now, the point for consideration is:
Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any
interference? If so, to what extent?
4 VGKRJ
MACMA 137 of 2014
11. POINT :-
The petitioner was examined as PW1. In order to prove the
rashness and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle
i.e., auto truck bearing No.AP 10 V 3331, the petitioner relied on his
own testimony as PW1. He deposed in his evidence that the driver
of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed his Bajaj scooter and caused the accident. In
support of his contention, the petitioner relied on Ex.A1 attested
copy of First Information Report and Ex.A5 attested copy of Charge
Sheet. The evidence of PW1 supports with Ex.A1 and Ex.A5 proves
that the accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., first respondent and
in the said accident, the claim petitioner received grievous injuries.
The Tribunal by giving cogent reasons gave the same finding.
Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by
the Tribunal.
12. With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the petitioner relied on the evidence of PW2 Dr.Alladi
Rajarao, who treated the petitioner, subsequent to the accident, in
5 VGKRJ
MACMA 137 of 2014
the hospital. As per the case of the petitioner, he was aged about
50 years and working as APSRTC driver and getting monthly salary
of Rs.6,100/-. The Tribunal held in its order that "in order to prove
the salary of the injured, no evidence is produced by the claim
petitioner". Admittedly, the salary certificate of the claim petitioner is
not yet filed. In the absence of any documentary evidence, it is not
safe to come to conclusion that the claim petitioner is drawing salary
of Rs.6,100/- per month towards salary as a driver of APSRTC bus.
13. The petitioner relied on Ex.A6 bunch of medical bills worth of
Rs.63,243/- and those are supported by PW2. Ex.A6 bunch of
medical bills were confronted through PW2 in his evidence before
the Tribunal. On verification of Ex.A6 bills coupled with the
evidence of PW2 the Tribunal rightly granted an amount of
Rs.63,243/- towards medical expenses. The petitioner also proved
by producing Ex.A2 wound certificate that he sustained two grievous
injuries and three simple injuries and the petitioner did not file any
disability certificate. On considering the evidence of PW2, the
Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- each to the grievous
injuries and Rs.1,000/- each to the simple injuries. i.e., Rs.3,000/-
6 VGKRJ
MACMA 137 of 2014
for three simple injuries and Rs.10,000/- for two grievous injuries. In
addition to the above compensation the Tribunal also awarded an
amount of Rs.1,000/- towards transportation charges and
Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. In total, the Tribunal
awarded an amount of Rs.87,243/- towards compensation to the
claimant.
14. The Tribunal in its order came to conclusion that there is no
evidence on record that the driver of the offending vehicle is having
driving licence at the time of accident and an amount of Rs.50,000/-
only is awarded towards statutory liability under section 95 (2) (a) of
M.V.Act.
15. The Tribunal held in its order that no evidence is produced to
show that the driver of the offending vehicle is having valid driving
licence by the date of accident. As seen from the material on record,
the Insurance Company pleaded in the written statement that the
Motor Vehicle Inspector report discloses that the driving licence of
the driver is not available. There is no mention in Motor Vehicle
Inspection report that the driver of the offending vehicle is not having
7 VGKRJ
MACMA 137 of 2014
any driving licence. On the other hand, the claim petitioner
categorically stated in his claim application that the driver of the
offending vehicle is having driving licence on the date of accident.
There is no mention in Ex.A5 Charge Sheet that the driver of the
offending vehicle is not having driving licence at the time of accident.
Admittedly, no evidence is produced by the respondents to show
that the driver of the offending vehicle is not having any driving
licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident. No
evidence is adduced by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal
to show that the driver of the offending vehicle is not having driving
licence by the date of accident. As per Ex.B1, the crime vehicle is
insured with the third respondent Insurance company and the policy
is in force at the time of accident. It was held by the Tribunal in its
order that the offending vehicle is insured with third respondent
Insurance company and the policy is in force. As noticed supra, no
evidence is produced by the Insurance Company to show that the
driver of the offending vehicle is not having driving licence by the
date of accident. As noticed supra, there is no mention in the Motor
Vehicle Inspector report and Charge sheet filed by the police that
the driver of offending vehicle is not having driving licence at the
8 VGKRJ
MACMA 137 of 2014
time of accident. More over in the claim petition itself, the claimant
stated that the driver of the offending vehicle is having driving
licence at the time of accident. Therefore, it is clear that the
offending vehicle is insured with third respondent Insurance
Company under Ex.B1 policy and the policy is in force and the driver
of the offending vehicle is having valid driving licence at the time of
accident. Therefore, respondents 2 and 3 are liable to pay the
compensation of Rs.87,243/- to the claim petitioner. The second
respondent owner of the offending vehicle is insured the offending
vehicle with third respondent under Ex.B1 policy and the policy is in
force and third respondent Insurance company has to indemnify the
owner of the offending vehicle.
16. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed by modifying the
order dated 01.02.2010 passed in MVOP No.63/2008 on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge
(FTC), Bhimavaram. The appellant is entitled total compensation of
Rs.87,243/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the
date of payment. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to deposit
the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.37,243/- with interest as
9 VGKRJ
MACMA 137 of 2014
ordered above within two months 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: 26.06.2023.
sj
10 VGKRJ
MACMA 137 of 2014
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.137 of 2014
26.06.2023
sj
