Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Boppana Naga Venkata Lakshmi ... vs Durga Bhupati Raju on 6 October, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.1632 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.08.2013 on the file
of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- IV Additional District Judge,
Guntur, passed in M.V.O.P.No.415 of 2011, whereby the Tribunal
has partly allowed the claim against the respondents 1 and 2, the
instant appeal is preferred by the appellant/ claimant for
enhancement of claim amount.
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.11,75,000/- towards
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle
Accident occurred on 04.10.2010.
4. Facts germane to dispose of this appeal may be briefly stated
as follows:
2 VGKRJ
MACMA 1632 of 2014
On 04.10.2010 at about 7.00 p.m., while the petitioner and his
brother Sobha Sankar were coming from Gudivada to their village
Pedapalaparru on a bike and when they reached near Z.P.H.School
of Pedapalaparru, one Tata Indica car bearing No.AP16TV 7310,
hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle', driven by its driver,
came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bike,
resulting which the petitioner and his brother fell down and
sustained multiple injuries.
5. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counters separately denying the
claim of the claimant and contended that the claimant is not entitled
any compensation and the respondents 1 and 2 are not liable to pay
any compensation to the claimant.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
i. Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of Tata Indica bearing
No.AP 16TV 7310?
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation,
and if so, to what amount?
iii. To what relief?
3 VGKRJ
MACMA 1632 of 2014
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.A9
and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked. No oral or documentary
evidence was adduced on behalf of the 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.8,00,000/- to the claimant towards
compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the
present appeal claiming the remaining balance of compensation
amount.
9. Heard Sri Sk.Masood Ahmed, learned counsel for the
petitioner and M/s.A.Malathi, learned counsel for second respondent
Insurance Company and perused the record.
10. Now, the points for consideration are:
1. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any
interference?
4 VGKRJ
MACMA 1632 of 2014
2. Whether the claimant/ appellant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation as prayed for?
11. POINT Nos.1 and 2:-
In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the offending vehicle, the petitioner relied on the evidence of PW1.
PW1 is none other than the injured person. The evidence of PW1
coupled with Ex.A1 certified copy of First Information Report and
Ex.A2 certified copy of charge sheet clearly proves that the accident
in question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal also gave the same
finding. In order to prove the contributory negligence on the part of
the petitioner as alleged by the insurer, no evidence is adduced by
the Insurance Company. The Tribunal by giving cogent reasons
arrived to a conclusion that the accident in question was occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending
vehicle. No appeal is filed by the respondents against the said
finding. I do not filed any illegality in the said finding given by the
Tribunal.
5 VGKRJ
MACMA 1632 of 2014
12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal
awarded an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to the claimant towards total
compensation. The material on record reveals that the petitioner
sustained multiple grievous injuries in a road accident. On
considering Ex.A4 to Ex.A8 hospital bills and receipts and the
evidence of PW2 to PW4, the Tribunal awarded an amount of
Rs.5,03,006/- towards medical expenses including the cost of
artificial leg. I do not find any illegality in awarding the said
compensation under the said head. The material on record reveals
that the injured is suffering with disability of 70%. The Tribunal by
giving cogent reasons arrived monthly income of the petitioner as
Rs.3,000/- per month i.e., Rs.36,000/- per annum and rightly applied
the multiplier of 16 with regard to the age group of the petitioner.
Since his right leg was amputated, on considering 70% disability
sustained by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.4,03,200/- (36,000 x 70%
x 16) is awarded by this Court towards permanent disability. Since
the petitioner sustained severe grievous injuries and his right leg
was amputated above knee, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded
towards nutrition of food and attendant charges, an amount of
Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards transport charges and an amount of
6 VGKRJ
MACMA 1632 of 2014
Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering. Since his right
leg was amputated above the knee, due to loss of comfort in a life,
an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under the said head.
Therefore, in total, the claimant is entitled an amount of
Rs.9,71,206/-. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.971,206/-. The learned counsel
for appellant relied on Civil Appeal No.735 of 2020 and Civil Appeals
Nos.9070-9071 of 2022. Here in this case, the Tribunal awarded
the cost of artificial limb amount and also entire medical expenses. It
is not in dispute that the offending vehicle is insured with the second
respondent Insurance Company and the policy is in force and the
driver of the offending vehicle is having valid driving licence and
there is no violations in the policy. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly
fastened the liability on both the respondents.
13. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, modifying the order
dated 08.08.2013 passed in MVOP No.415/2011 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District Judge,
Guntur, consequently, the claim amount is enhanced from
Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs.9,71,206/-. The petitioner is entitled the
7 VGKRJ
MACMA 1632 of 2014
enhanced compensation of Rs.1,71,206/- with interest @6% p.a.
from the date of petition, till the date of realization. The respondents
1 and 2 are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of
Rs.1,71,206/- with interest as ordered above, before the Tribunal
within two months 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: .10.2023.
sj
8 VGKRJ
MACMA 1632 of 2014
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.1632 of 2014
.10.2023
sj
