Gorrepati Rami Reddy vs J. Malleswari
2023 Latest Caselaw 2896 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No. 968 of 2014

JUDGEMENT:

The appellant is claimant in M.V.O.P.No.367 of 2006 on the

file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl.

District Judge, Kadapa and the respondents are 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 the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the

Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards

compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle

accident that occurred on 14.06.2004.

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

VGKR,J MACMA No.968 of 2014

On 14.06.2004 the claimant was travelling in an lorry bearing

registration No.AP 04U 2110 towards Chunnur from Duvur and

when the lorry reached near Chennur bridge, a lorry bearing

registration No.AP 16V 4929 being driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner, came in opposite direction and dashed the lorry,

due to which, the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries. The

1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the

offending lorry and hence, both the respondents are jointly and

severally liable to pay compensation.

5. The 1st respondent was set ex parte.

6. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a written

statement by denying the manner of accident. It is pleaded that the

accident is of head on collision and therefore, both the drivers of the

auto and the lorry are at equal fault and if any compensation is

awarded, the same shall be apportioned equally and not against the

owner of the lorry alone.

VGKR,J MACMA No.968 of 2014

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

following issues for trial:

1. Whether the claimant sustained injuries on 14.06.2004 at 4.00 p.m. near Chennur Bridge, Anjaneyapuram village on Kadapa-Kurnool National Highway due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16V 4929 of the 1st respondent being insured with the 2nd respondent?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from whom? and

3. To what relief?

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

the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were

marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral evidence was

adduced, but Ex.B.1 was got marked.

9. 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.67,500/-

towards compensation to the claimant. Being aggrieved by the

VGKR,J MACMA No.968 of 2014

impugned award, the claimant preferred the appeal for

enhancement of compensation.

10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

11. The grounds urged by the appellant/claimant are that the

Tribunal failed to consider that the claimant sustained one grievous

injury and eight simple injuries and ought to have awarded

compensation on these two heads.

12. Now, the points for determination are:

1) Whether the claimant is entitled enhancement of compensation as prayed for? and

2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference?

13. POINT Nos.1 and 2 : On appreciation of the evidence on

record, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the

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

the offending lorry and because of the accident, the claimant

sustained multiple injuries. The material on record and Ex.A.1-

VGKR,J MACMA No.968 of 2014

certified copy of first information report and Ex.A.3-certified copy of

charge sheet also proves that the accident occurred due to sole

negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry. The Tribunal

gave the same finding. No appeal was filed by the respondents

against the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no need to

interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.

14. The claimant, who is a student, is aged about 16 years at the

time of accident. Because of sudden accident, he suffered severe

mental agony as he sustained one grievous injury and eight simple

injuries in the accident and his future was damaged. The claimant

was admitted in NIMS, Hyderabad as an inpatient and got treatment

for some time. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned

Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the claimant is not

entitled any compensation under the head of disability. This Court

also does not find any infirmity in the said finding given by the

Tribunal.

15. Coming to the compensation granted by the Tribunal, a sum of

Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards treatment and surgery,

VGKR,J MACMA No.968 of 2014

Rs.7,500/- was awarded towards attendant charges and Rs.5,000/-

was awarded towards extra nourishment. This Court feels that there

is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal on

these three heads.

16. As seen from Ex.A.2-wound certificate and also the evidence

of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is clear that the claimant sustained one fracture

and eight simple injuries. P.W.2-Doctor also certified the same in

Ex.A.2-wound certificate. Therefore, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is

awarded to the claimant towards grievous injury, in addition to

Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards treatment and surgery.

17. The case of the claimant is that he was admitted in NIMS,

Hyderabad, as an inpatient on 18.06.2004 and discharged on

16.07.2004 and he was treated in the hospital for a period of 28

days. The learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.5,000/-

towards mental agony. This Court feels that the said amount is very

low. Because of sudden accident, the petitioner suffered severe

mental agony and his studies were also affected. Therefore, the

said amount is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-.

VGKR,J MACMA No.968 of 2014

18. With regard to the simple injuries sustained by the claimant,

no compensation was awarded by the Tribunal. As seen from

Ex.A.2-wound certificate, the petitioner sustained eight simple

injuries. Therefore, an amount of Rs.16,000/- towards eight simple

injuries @ Rs.2,000/- for each simple injury.

19. In total, the claimant is entitled an amount of Rs.1,08,500/-

towards compensation.

20. It is not in dispute by the 2nd respondent/Insurance company

that the offending lorry was insured with the Insurance company and

the policy was also in force and the driver of the offending lorry was

also having valid driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore,

both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation.

21. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the

compensation from Rs.67,500/- to Rs.1,08,500/-. The respondents

are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.41,000/-,

with interest at 7.5% p.a. before the Tribunal from the date of

petition till the date of deposit as awarded by the Tribunal, within two

VGKR,J MACMA No.968 of 2014

months from the date of the judgment. On such deposit, the

claimant is entitled to withdraw enhanced compensation of

Rs.41,000/- along with interest. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

appeals shall stand closed.

_______________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J th 5 May, 2023 cbs

VGKR,J MACMA No.968 of 2014

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No. 968 of 2014

5th May, 2023 cbs