The vs Accordingly
2023 Latest Caselaw 3243 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.159 of 2014


JUDGMENT:

The appellant is the Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.213 of 2003 on

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

District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur 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.2,20,000/- towards compensation for the

injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on

09.05.2003.

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

On 09.05.2003 at about 8.00 a.m. when the petitioner was

going on a bi-cycle to his garden and when he reached near Rama

Sai Nagar, the driver of Tipper bearing No.AP 9V 9382 came in 2 VGKRJ MACMA 159 of 2014

opposite direction and drove the same in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed against the petitioner, resulting which the

petitioner sustained severe injuries and the petitioner claimed an

amount of Rs.2,20,000/- 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 petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09.05.2003 at 8.00 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tipper bearing No.AP 9V 9382?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom?

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 3 VGKRJ MACMA 159 of 2014

Ex.A10 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.58,000/- 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 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 evidence of PW1/ injured, the Tribunal

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

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tipper. Ex.A1 4 VGKRJ MACMA 159 of 2014

certified copy of First Information Report reveals that the FIR was

registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. Basing on the

material on record, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the

accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver

of offending vehicle. No appeal is filed by the respondents against

the said finding given by the 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

compensation of Rs.58,000/- to the claimant. Aggrieved against the

said compensation, the claimant filed this appeal for enhancement

of compensation. Ex.A2 attested copy of wound certificate shows

that the petitioner sustained two grievous injuries and one simple

injury. In total, the petitioner sustained three injuries in a road

accident. In order to prove the disability, the petitioner relied on

disability certificate, issued by District Medical Board, which is

marked as Ex.A4. The Tribunal, on considering the material on

record, awarded an amount of Rs.12,000/- to the fracture of left arm 5 VGKRJ MACMA 159 of 2014

and an amount of Rs.22,000/- to the compound fracture of right leg.

By considering the medical bills, the Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.6,000/- towards medical expenses and on considering the

disability certificate, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/-

towards disability and Rs.3,000/- towards loss of earnings. The

accident was occurred in the year 2003. In those days an ordinary

coolie, who is aged about 50 years can easily earn Rs.50/- per day

i.e., Rs.1,500/- per month i.e., Rs.18,000/- per year. Therefore,

monthly income of the petitioner is taken as Rs.1,500/- per month

i.e., Rs.18,000/- per annum. Ex.A4 disability certificate issued by

the District Medical Board reveals that the petitioner is suffering

disability of 50% to his right ankle. It is settled law that a disability to

a particular limb cannot be treated as a disability to whole body.

Therefore, on considering the material evidence available on record,

the disability suffered by the injured/ claimant is fixed at 20%. By

the date of accident, the injured was aged about 50 years. As per

the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma and

another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others1 case,

the multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is '13'.

    2009 ACJ 1298
                                  6                              VGKRJ
                                                     MACMA 159 of 2014

Accordingly, an amount of Rs.46,800/- (18,000 x20/100 x13 =

46,800) is awarded towards disability. The Tribunal awarded an

amount of Rs.15,000/- towards disability. Therefore, the claimant is

entitled enhanced compensation of Rs.31,800/- towards disability.

Accordingly, the claimant is entitled an amount of Rs.89,800/- from

the respondents towards total compensation.

13. 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.31,800/- from the second respondent.

Accordingly, the claimant is entitled an amount of Rs.89,800/- from

the second respondent towards total compensation.

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

order dated 05.12.2006 passed in MVOP No.213/2003 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, 7 VGKRJ MACMA 159 of 2014

Kadapa at Proddatur and the claim amount is enhanced from

Rs.58,000/- to Rs.89,800/-. The petitioner is entitled the enhanced

compensation of Rs.31,800/- 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 Rs.31,800/- 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. 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
                        8                            VGKRJ
                                         MACMA 159 of 2014

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.159 of 2014

27.06.2023

sj