Thurugu Narayanappadu vs Kasa Pydiraju 5 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1359 AP

                                     1           MACMA.NO.1821 of 2012




       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO


                    M.A.C.M.A.No.1821 of 2012


JUDGMENT:

The appellant is the claimant/petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.903

of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Family

Court-Cum-Addl. District and Sessions Court) Vizianagaram, and

the respondents are the respondents in the said case.

2. The parties in the appeal will be referred as they are arrayed

in the claim application.

3. The Claimant has filed Claim Petition under section 166 of

MV Act, for claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for

sustaining injuries in a road accident occurred on 13.04.2007.

4. The case of the claimant/petitioner is that he is resident of

Pedamajjipalem Village, Gantyada Mandal, Vizianagaram District,

hale and healthy working as a Computer Operator in Steel

Securities Private Company, he used to earn Ra.3,500/- per

month. The petitioner further pleaded on 13.04.2007, he boarded

in a Jeep at Vizianagaram to go to Pedamajjipalem and when the 2 MACMA.NO.1821 of 2012

said Jeep reached near Irrigation Office, Cantonment,

Vizianagaram at about 7:30 pm., an APSRTC bus bearing No. AP

10 Z 705 came from opposite direction driven by the first

respondent driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed

and dashed the jeep, as a result, he fell down and sustained

grievous head injury, he further pleaded after the accident he was

taken to District Head Quarter Hospital, Vizianagaram and

subsequently he was admitted at Seven Hills Hospital,

Vizianagaram for better treatment, and the said accident was

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

first respondent driver of APSRTC bus.

5. The 1st, 4th and 5th respondents remained ex parte.

6. The 3rd respondent, the Managing Director, APSRTC,

Hyderabad contested the matter by filing counter, adopted by 2nd

respondent and disputed the age, avocation and accident etc.,

alleged by the petitioner. It was further contended that the 1st

respondent clearly stated before the officials of the APSRTC on

paper that accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the Jeep but not due to the negligence on the part of the

driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 705; that the jeep 3 MACMA.NO.1821 of 2012

driver was not having valid driving license at the time of driving the

jeep and it was not duly insured; that the claim of interest is highly

excessive.

7. The 6th respondent filed counter denying all the averments of

the petition and disputed the age, income, avocation and accident

as alleged by the petitioner and puts the petitioner to strict proof of

the same. The 6th respondent further pleaded that the petitioner is

put to strict proof that the crime vehicle was insured with their

Company, that the driver of the crime vehicle was having

subsisting driving license, that the vehicle was road worthy to ply

and the insurance was in force at the time of accident, the claim of

interest is highly excessive and arbitrary and even if the policy is

established their company is not liable to pay compensation unless

it is proved that section 64 VB of Insurance Act, 1938 and Rules

58 and 59 of the Insurance Rules 1958 are complied with. The 6th

respondent further pleaded that the accident was occurred only

due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the

APSRTC bus involved in the above accident.

4 MACMA.NO.1821 of 2012

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

following issues:

1) Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of R1?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so at what quantum of amount the petitioner is entitled?

4) To What relief?

9. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and

got marked Exs.A1 to A12. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1

examined and got marked Ex. B1, Ex.X1 and X2, before Tribunal.

10. Now, the points for consideration are:

1) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

2) Whether the claimant is entitled enhanced compensation as claimed for?

POINT NO.1 & 2:

11. In order to prove the case of the petitioner the injured

himself was examined as PW1, he deposed in his evidence about 5 MACMA.NO.1821 of 2012

the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent driver of

APSRTC and also about the occurrence of accident on 13.04.2007

and also receipt of grievous injury in a road accident which was

caused by the 1st respondent the evidence of PW1 coupled with

Ex.A1 copy of the FIR Ex.A3 copy of charge sheet, clearly goes to

show that the 1st respondent drove the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP

10 Z 705 in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed and

dashed to the Jeep in which the petitioner was travelling and that

he fell down and sustained head injury.

12. The oral and documentary evidence clearly proves about the

rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent the Tribunal came

to conclusion that the accident is occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the 1st respondent no appeal is filed by the

respondents against the said finding.

13. The petitioner claims an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards

medical expenses, but he filed medical bills for Rs.2,86,770/- and

got marked as Ex.A4, therefore, the claim of petitioner for an

amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical expenses is

unsustainable, no documentary evidence is filed to show the

petitioner incurred medical expenses beyond Rs.2,86,770/-

6 MACMA.NO.1821 of 2012

therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly granted Rs.2,86,770/-

towards medical expenses, therefore, there is no need to interfere

with the said finding, the petitioner also examined the Doctors who

treated him as PW 3 to 5. As per the evidence of PW3 to PW5, it is

clear the petitioner obtained treatment in Corporate Hospital and

the petitioner also sustained disability according to the petitioner

he is suffering from partial and permanent disability to an extent of

30% but on careful scrutinize the evidence on record, the learned

Tribunal rightly assessed the percentage of disability is 25 %, the

learned Tribunal also came to conclusion basing on the Ex.A10

salary certificate coupled with the evidence of PW2 that the

monthly income of the injured is Rs.3,000/- per month. The age of

the claimant is 30 years and multiplier applicable to the age group

of petitioner is '17' On calculating said multiplier, the learned

Tribunal rightly granted an amount of Rs.1,53,000/- towards

future loss of earnings towards the disability of 25%, therefore,

there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the

Tribunal. As per the evidence on record the petitioner was

hospitalized nearly for about two months and he is received severe

head injury which is a grave in nature. Therefore, it is just and 7 MACMA.NO.1821 of 2012

necessary the grant of an amount of Rs.12,000/-towards loss of

earnings for a period of four months @ Rs.3000/- per month. Here

the petitioner sustained severe head injury and he was hospitalized

for about two months. Therefore, he is unable to discharge is

duties for a period of four months.

14. The learned Tribunal has not granted any amount towards

loss of earning; therefore, it is desirable to grant an amount of

Rs.12,000/- towards loss of earnings for a period of four months @

Rs.3,000/- per month, the learned Tribunal also granted an

amount of Rs.20,000/-towards pain and suffering because the

petitioner sustained severe head injury and also hospitalized for a

period of two months and he undergone in a Corporate Hospital

and he suffered severe mental agony. Therefore, an amount of

Rs.20,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is

increased to Rs.30,000/-, the learned Tribunal has not granted

any amount towards grievous injury sustained by the claimant the

said grievous injury is severe head injury and he was treated by

the three Doctors PW2 to PW4, therefore, an amount of

Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards grievous injury to the claimant,

the learned Tribunal has granted Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards 8 MACMA.NO.1821 of 2012

Transportation charges, the learned Tribunal also granted

Rs.11,000/- towards extra nourishment to the claimant.

The learned Tribunal also granted Rs.20,000/- towards

attendant charges, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the

said finding given by the Tribunal.

15. In view of the above reasons the claim granted by the

Tribunal for an amount Rs.5,01,000/- is enhanced to

Rs.5,43,000/-, the petitioner is entitled to an amount of

Rs.42,000/- towards enhanced claim.

16. Therefore, the award dated 30.10.2010 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.903 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal (Family Court-Cum-Addl. District and Sessions Court)

Vizianagaram, is modified.

17. In the result, appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order

dated 30.10.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.903 of 2007, the petitioner

is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,43,000/-, with interest

of 7.5% P.A., on the enhanced claim, from the date of petition till

the date of realization. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to

deposit the balance of amount with in (1) month from the date of 9 MACMA.NO.1821 of 2012

the Judgment, on such deposit the petitioner is entitled to

withdraw the same along with accrued interest there on.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand closed.

______________________ V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J

Date:10.03.2023 KNN