Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Janjeti Gowramma vs Bobbili Rajesh And 2 Others on 11 October, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3030 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.04.2006 on the file
of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- II Additional District Judge,
Parvatipuram, passed in M.V.O.P.No.928 of 2004, 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 and Rule 455 of A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989
against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by
her in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 28.05.2004.
4. Facts germane to dispose of this appeal may be briefly stated
as follows:
2 VGKRJ
MACMA 3030 of 2012
On 28.05.2004 the petitioner boarded a Maruthi car bearing
No.AP35B 7778, hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle', along
with her relatives at Alajangi to go to Vizianagaram, when the car
reached near railway station junction, Gajapathinagaram, the driver
of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against one stationed bus bearing No.AP35T
5477, resulting which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries,
immediately, after the accident, the petitioner was taken to RHEA
Hospital, Visakhapatnam for treatment.
5. The first and second respondents remained exparte. The third
respondent filed counter denying the claim of the claimant and
contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and
the third respondent 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 accident was occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of Maruthi car bearing
No.AP35B 7778?
3 VGKRJ
MACMA 3030 of 2012
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any
compensation, if so, from which of the respondents?
iii. To what relief?
7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf
of the petitioner, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9
and Ex.X1 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf
of the respondent No.3, however, Ex.B1 was marked.
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.91,000/- 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 T.S.Rayalu, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri
N.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for third respondent Insurance
Company and perused the material on record.
4 VGKRJ
MACMA 3030 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 her self testimony as
PW1. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 attested copy of
First Information Report and Ex.A4 attested 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 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 or cross objections
are filed by the respondents against the said finding. Therefore, 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.91,000/- to the claimant towards total
5 VGKRJ
MACMA 3030 of 2012
compensation. The contention of the petitioner is that she was aged
about 50 years and she was hale and healthy and discharging her
duties as housewife prior to the accident, but now she is not able to
attend her duty because of accident and she sustained monetary
loss also. Ex.A2 attested copy of wound certificate coupled with the
evidence of PW2 to PW5, clearly goes to show that the petitioner
sustained injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident in question and she
suffered two grievous injuries. The evidence of PW3 to PW5,
coupled with the evidence of PW1 and PW2, clearly proves that the
petitioner spent an amount of Rs.43,780/- towards medical
expenses, therefore, the said amount is awarded towards medical
expenses. Since the petitioner sustained two grievous injuries, I find
it is a just and necessary to award an amount of Rs.20,000/- for two
grievous injuries @ Rs.10,000/- for each grievous injury. Since the
petitioner sustained two grievous injuries and she also underwent
treatment as inpatient and it is not possible to her to attend her daily
normal work, therefore, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards
loss of earnings for two months @ Rs.2,500/- for each month. The
petitioner also entitled an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards
transportation charges and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards extra
6 VGKRJ
MACMA 3030 of 2012
nourishment of food. The case of the claimant is that she sustained
disability of 20% because of the two grievous injuries sustained by
her in a Motor Vehicles accident. It is not in dispute that, at the time
of accident, the petitioner was in between the age group of 50 to 52
and as per Ex.A7, the disability sustained by the petitioner is 20%.
As stated supra, the monthly income of the petitioner is Rs.2,500/-
i.e., Rs.30,000/- per annum. The multiplier applicable to the age
group of the petitioner is 11. On considering the entire evidence on
record, I find that it is desirable to award an amount of Rs.66,000/-
(30,000 x 20% x 11) towards permanent disability of 20% sustained
by the petitioner. Therefore, in total, the claimant is entitled an
amount of Rs.1,44,780/- towards compensation. Accordingly, the
amount of Rs.91,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.1,44,780/-. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle is
insured with the third respondent Insurance Company and the policy
is in force and there are no violations in Ex.B1 policy. Infact, the total
liability is fastened on all the respondents by the Tribunal in the year
2006 itself, till so far, no appeal or no cross objections are filed by
the respondents against the said finding. Therefore, there is no
need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.
7 VGKRJ
MACMA 3030 of 2012
13. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, modifying the order
dated 13.04.2006 passed in MVOP No.928/2004 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge,
Parvatipuram, consequently, the claim amount is enhanced from
Rs.91,000/- to Rs.1,44,780/-. The petitioner is entitled the enhanced
compensation of Rs.53,780/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date
of petition, till the date of realization. The respondents 1 to 3 are
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.53,780/- 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 3030 of 2012
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3030 of 2012
11.10.2023
sj
