The vs District Judge
2023 Latest Caselaw 3241 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.1116 of 2014


JUDGMENT:

The appellant is the Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.380 of 2010 on

the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- I Additional

District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru 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 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to

award an amount of Rs.6,25,000/- towards compensation for the

injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on

09.12.2008.

4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

On 09.12.2008 at about 2.30 p.m. while the petitioner was

proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 5AB 8385 from

Achanta to Sidhantham village, the driver of auto bearing No.AP 2 VGKRJ MACMA 1116 of 2014

37X 6245 came in an opposite direction in a negligent manner and

drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against

the petitioner, resulting which the petitioner sustained fracture

injuries and the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.6,25,000/-

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

petitioner.

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

following issues:

i. Whether the accident dated 09.12.2008 occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of the Truck bearing No.AP 37 X 6245 by the 1st respondent? ii. Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner himself?

iii. Whether the 1st respondent and petitioner were having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident?

                                 3                              VGKRJ
                                                    MACMA 1116 of 2014

iv. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of motor cycle bearing No.AP 37 AP 8385?

v. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents?

vi. 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.A8

were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 and RW2 were

examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were 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.4,52,786/- to the claimant towards

compensation.

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

claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount.

                                 4                               VGKRJ
                                                     MACMA 1116 of 2014

10. Now, the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference?

2. Whether the claimant/ appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

11. POINT Nos.1 and 2:-

On considering the material available on record, the Tribunal

came to conclusion that the accident was occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle trolley goods

auto bearing No.AP 37X 6245. Ex.A1 attested copy of First

Information Report (FIR) reveals that the FIR was registered against

the first respondent, who is the driver of the offending vehicle.

Ex.A3 attested copy of charge sheet reveals that after completion of

investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the driver of the

offending vehicle. The material on record clearly reveals about the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The

Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident was occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. No appeal is

filed by the respondents against the said finding given by the 5 VGKRJ MACMA 1116 of 2014

Tribunal. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there is no

legal flaw or infirmity in the above finding given by the Tribunal.

12. Coming to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the

Tribunal, on considering the material on record, awarded an amount

of Rs.4,52,786/- to the claimant towards total compensation.

Aggrieved against the said compensation, the claimant filed an

appeal for enhancement of compensation. The evidence of PW1

coupled with the evidence of PW2 Dr.T.Udaya Prakash Reddy,

which is supported by wound certificate Ex.A2, reveals that the

petitioner sustained five grievous injuries in a road accident. As

seen from the material available on record, the petitioner/ injured

was admitted in the hospital on 09.12.2008 and discharged on

02.01.2009. As per Ex.A2 wound certificate, the petitioner also

sustained one simple injury. Since the petitioner sustained five

grievous injuries, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/-

(@Rs.10,000/- for each grievous injury) towards pain and suffering.

On considering the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner,

which is supported by medical evidence, I am of the considered

view that the petitioner/ injured is entitled an amount of Rs.90,000/-

                                 6                              VGKRJ
                                                    MACMA 1116 of 2014

towards five grievous injuries (@ Rs.18,000/- for each grievous

injury). As seen from Ex.A2 wound certificate, the petitioner also

sustained one simple injury. Therefore, an amount of Rs.2,000/- is

awarded towards simple injury. As seen from the material on record,

the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and he was hospitalized for

a period of approximately 20 days, therefore an amount of

Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards attendant charges. In total, the

claimant is entitled an amount of Rs.47,000/- towards enhanced

compensation.

13. The Tribunal by giving cogent reasons and considering the

medical evidence on record fixed the disability of injured at 30% and

by applying the decision of Sarla Verma's case, the multiplier 17

was applied and an amount of Rs.1,83,600/- was awarded towards

permanent disability. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of

Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards

nutrition charges and an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of

earnings. By considering the medical bills Ex.A5 and Ex.A6, the

Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,94,186/- towards medical 7 VGKRJ MACMA 1116 of 2014

expenditure. In total, the claimant is entitled compensation of

Rs.4,99,786/-.

14. It is not in dispute by both sides that offending vehicle is

insured with second respondent Insurance Company and the policy

is also in force and the driver of the offending vehicle is also having

valid and effective driving licence by the date of accident. Therefore,

the claimant is entitled the compensation from the second

respondent. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled enhanced

compensation of Rs.47,000/- from the second respondent.

Accordingly, the claimant is entitled an amount of Rs.4,99,786/- from

the second respondent towards total compensation.

15. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed by modifying the

order dated 18.06.2012 passed in MVOP No.380/2010 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge,

Wast Godavari District at Eluru and the claim amount is enhanced

from Rs.4,52,786/- to Rs.4,99,786/-. The petitioner is entitled the

enhanced compensation of Rs.47,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a.

from the date of petition, till the date of payment. The second

respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of 8 VGKRJ MACMA 1116 of 2014

Rs.47,000/- with interest as 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: 27.06.2023.

sj
                         9                            VGKRJ
                                          MACMA 1116 of 2014

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.1116 of 2014

27.06.2023

sj