Kovvuru Murali Krishna Reddy, ... vs Gona Vijaya Govinda Rao, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4885 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.3604 of 2012


JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.05.2008 on the file

of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal District Judge,

Vizianagaram, passed in M.V.O.P.No.35 of 2005, whereby the

Tribunal has partly allowed the claim against the respondents 1 to 3,

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 section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to

award an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation for the

injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on

04.04.2003.

4. Facts germane to dispose of this appeal may be briefly stated

as follows:

                                  2                             VGKRJ
                                                    MACMA 3604 of 2012

On 04.04.2003 while the petitioner was proceeding to Salur

from Cheepurupalli along with one N.S.V.Satyanarayana and when

they reached near Ramabhadrapuram, the driver of lorry bearing

No.ADA 7659, hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle', drove

the same in a rash and negligent manner, with blowing horn and

without following traffic rules, dashed against the motor cycle of the

petitioner, resulting which the petitioner fell down and sustained

multiple injuries.

5. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte. The

respondent No.3 filed counter denying the claim of the claimant and

contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and

the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the

claimant.

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

following issues:

i. Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.ADA 7659 by its driver first respondent?

                                   3                               VGKRJ
                                                       MACMA 3604 of 2012




 ii.   Whether    the    petitioner   is   entitled   to   any

compensation, and if so what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

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 Ex.A9

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.1,08,500/- 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 Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner and M/s.S.Pranathi, learned counsel for third respondent

Insurance Company and perused the material on record.

                                   4                               VGKRJ
                                                       MACMA 3604 of 2012

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:-

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.A5 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 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

find any illegality in the said finding given by the Tribunal.

12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal

awarded an amount of Rs.1,08,500/- to the claimant towards total 5 VGKRJ MACMA 3604 of 2012

compensation. The material on record reveals that the petitioner

sustained one grievous injury and one simple injury in a road

accident. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence of PW2-

Dr.Sushant Kumar Mallik, Orthopedic Surgeon and on considering

the Ex.A2 attested copy of wound certificate, Ex.A6 bunch of

medical bills, Ex.A7 payment of inpatient bills and Ex.A8 disability

certificate, awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- for one grievous

injury and an amount of Rs.2,500/- for one simple injury and also

awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. I do

not find any illegality in the said finding given by the Tribunal in

awarding the compensation under the said heads. On considering

the material on record, the Tribunal arrived the monthly income of

the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month. The accident in question

occurred in the year 2003. In those days an ordinary coolie can

easily earn Rs.75/- to 100/- per day, therefore, monthly income of

the deceased is arrived at Rs.2,500/-. The material on record

reveals that the petitioner is aged about 25 years at the time of

accident. The case of the claimant is that he sustained disability of

10% because of grievous injury sustained by him in a Motor

Vehicles accident. As stated supra, the monthly income of the 6 VGKRJ MACMA 3604 of 2012

petitioner is Rs.2,500/- i.e., Rs.30,000/- per annum. The multiplier

applicable to the age group of the petitioner is 18. On considering

the entire evidence on record, I find that it is desirable to award an

amount of Rs.54,000/- (30,000 x 10% x 18) towards disability of 10%

sustained by the petitioner. The evidence of PW1 and PW2, coupled

with the Ex.A6 bunch of medical bills, clearly proves that the

petitioner spent an amount of Rs.48,000/- towards medical

expenses, therefore, the said amount is awarded towards medical

expenses. Since the petitioner sustained one grievous injury and

one simple injury and was hospitalized for a period of one month, he

is also awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards nutrition of food

and attendant charges. Therefore, in total, the claimant is entitled

an amount of Rs.1,39,500/- towards compensation. Accordingly,

the amount of Rs.1,08,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to

Rs.1,39,500/-. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle is

insured with the third respondent Insurance Company and the policy

is in force and the driver of offending vehicle is having valid driving

licence at the time of accident. Infact, the total liability is fastened on

all the respondents by the Tribunal in the year 2008 itself, so far, no

appeal or no cross objections are filed by the respondents against 7 VGKRJ MACMA 3604 of 2012

the said finding. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the

said finding given by the Tribunal.

13. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, modifying the order

dated 31.05.2008 passed in MVOP No.35/2005 on the file of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge,

Vizianagaram, consequently, the claim amount is enhanced from

Rs.1,08,500/- to Rs.1,39,500/-. The petitioner is entitled the

enhanced compensation of Rs.31,000/- with interest @6% p.a. from

the date of petition, till the date of realization. The third respondent

is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.31,000/-

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: 11.10.2023.

sj
                         8                            VGKRJ
                                          MACMA 3604 of 2012

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.3604 of 2012

11.10.2023

sj