The vs Court-Cum- Additional District ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2845 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                      M.A.C.M.A.No.1667 of 2015


JUDGMENT:

The appellant is the second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.164 of

2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Family

Court-cum- Additional District Judge, Ananthapur and the

respondents are the petitioner and respondents 1 and 3 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 sections 140 and

166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying

the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards

compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a Motor Vehicle

Accident occurred on 16.01.2009.

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

On 16.01.2009 while the petitioner was travelling in APSRTC

bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 0604 from Uravakonda to Bangalore, on

VGKR, J MACMA No.1667 of 2015

the way near Linganapalli cross on NH-7 road, a lorry bearing No.RJ

14 GA 8783 came in opposite direction driven by its driver at high

speed in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the same

and dashed against the bus which was proceeding on the extreme

left side of the road. In that accident, the petitioner and others

sustained injuries and the petitioner claimed an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation.

5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second and third

respondents filed counters denying the claim application and

contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and

the second and third respondents are 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 occurred on 16.01.2009 at 10.45 p.m. near Linganapalli cross on NH-7 road due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.RJ 14 GA 8783 by its driver and dashed against the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 0604 and caused injuries to the petitioner?

VGKR, J MACMA No.1667 of 2015

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation?

If so, to what amount and from which respondent? iii. To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of

the petitioner, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 and

Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 was

examined, Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the

evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal

allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.3,79,200/-

towards compensation to the claim petitioner. Being aggrieved by

the impugned award, the second respondent/ Insurance Company

filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the

Tribunal.

9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

10. Now, the point for consideration is:

       Whether     the   Order     of   Tribunal      needs     any
       interference?

                                                                     VGKR, J
                                                        MACMA No.1667 of 2015




11.   POINT :-

Though the appellant/ Insurance Company raised various

grounds in the grounds of appeal, their argument is confined only

that the driver of the offending vehicle is not holding valid driving

licence and another ground i.e., disability of 45% fixed by the

Tribunal is excessive. Admittedly, the contention of the claimant is

that the driver of the offending vehicle is having valid driving licence

at the time of accident, but to rebut the said plea, no evidence is

adduced by the second respondent. Respondent No.1, who is the

owner of the offending vehicle, was set exparte.

12. On considering the entire material on record, the Tribunal held

that the second respondent filed Ex.B3 verification of driving licence

by one Hari Vansh Singh Tomar addressed to the Branch Manager

of Insurance Company at Mathura wherein it is stated that the

driving licence bearing No.9232/MTR/2003 was issued in the name

of SH Subhashchand, S/o.SH Harcharan Lal and not in the name of

SH Arun Kumar, S/o.Shroshan Lal, the driver of the crime vehicle.

The same was issued by the licencing authority, Mathura basing on

the accidental information. The learned Tribunal further held in its

VGKR, J MACMA No.1667 of 2015

order that as per Ex.A4 at the time of accident, the driver of the

crime vehicle was Anil Kumar Sarma and not Arun Kumar, whose

name is noted in Ex.B3 and the learned counsel for claimant would

submit that the second respondent did not produce any

documentary evidence to prove that the said Anil Kumar Sarma was

not having any driving licence to drive the crime vehicle. The

claimant is the third party. To rebut the plea taken by the claimant,

no evidence is adduced by the second respondent/ Insurance

Company to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle is not

having valid driving licence at the time of accident. For the reasons

best known to the Insurance Company, they did not adduced any

evidence. Ex.B1 policy filed by the Insurance Company clearly goes

to show that the policy is in force by the date of accident. Therefore,

there is no legal flaw or infirmity to come to conclusion by the

Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle is having valid

driving licence at the time of accident.

13. As per Ex.A7 issued by the medical board, the petitioner is

suffering partial disability of 45%. As per the evidence of PW2

doctor, the claimant cannot do her regular activities without support.

VGKR, J MACMA No.1667 of 2015

It is a settled law that the disability to one particular limb is not a

disability to whole body. Therefore, the disability suffered by the

claimant is arrived at 40%. The Tribunal arrived the monthly income

of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- i.e., Rs.36,000/- per annum and

appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is

'16'. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled an amount of

Rs.2,30,400/- (Rs.36,000/- x 16 x 40%) towards loss of earnings

due to permanent disability. The learned Tribunal by giving cogent

reasons awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and

suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards expenditure for treatment and

Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities, happiness and enjoyment.

The second respondent has not disputed the said quantum awarded

under the above heads, except the amount awarded under the

disability head. Therefore, with these above observations the

appeal is partly allowed by modifying the claim as Rs.3,50,400/-.

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

order dated 17.07.2012 passed in MVOP No.164/2010 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-

Additional District Judge, Ananthapur. The petitioner is entitled an

VGKR, J MACMA No.1667 of 2015

amount of Rs.3,50,400/- 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 compensation amount of Rs.3,50,400/- within

one month from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the

petitioner 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: 04.05.2023.

sj

VGKR, J MACMA No.1667 of 2015

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.1667 of 2015

04.05.2023

sj