Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Madala Srinivasa Rao, vs Koduri Kantha Rao, on 30 October, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No. 675 of 2023
JUDGMENT: -
1) Aggrieved by the impugned Award and Decree, dated
14.02.2013, passed in M.V.O.P. No. 627 of 2007 on the file
of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V
Additional District Judge [F.T.C.], West Godavari, Eluru,
whereby, the Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.57,000/- towards total compensation; this instant
Appeal is preferred by the Claimant claiming balance
compensation amount, as prayed in the petition.
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) Sri. Madala Srinivasa Rao [the 'claim petitioner']
filed the petition under Section 166 and Section 140/173
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [the 'M.V. Act'] read with
Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules as per Act (Amended)
54 to 1994 against the respondents claiming compensation
of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a
motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17.01.2004.
2
4) Facts
germane to dispose of the Appeal in brief is as
follows: -
i. On 17.01.2004, the petitioner boarded an auto
bearing No.AP20 U 8892 at Phathimapuram in order
to go to Rangapuram after visiting his in-laws house
and within three to five minutes, the auto driver
drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner at
high speed without blowing horn and without
following traffic rules and dashed against a stationed
auto, as a result, the petitioner sustained multiple
injuries all over his body. A case in Crime No. 7 of
2004 for the offence punishable under Section 338 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ['I.P.C.'] was registered
against the driver of the offending vehicle auto and a
charge-sheet was also laid. The 1st respondent is the
driver and the 3rd respondent is the owner of the
offending vehicle auto, while the 3rd respondent is the
insurance company and, hence, all the respondents
are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to
the petitioner.
5) The 1st respondent/driver and 3rd respondent/owner
remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent/insurance company
filed written statement denying the claim of the claimant
and pleaded that the claimant is not entitled for any
compensation since there was no negligence on the part of
the driver of the offending vehicle auto and prays to
dismiss the petition.
6) Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the
following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:
i) Whether petitioner/injured sustained injuries in a
motor vehicle accident on 17.1.2004 due to rash
and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw bearing
No. AP20 U 8892, driven by its driver/1st
respondent?
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and 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 PW3 were examined and
Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 and Ex.X1 were marked. On behalf the 2nd
respondent, RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 and
Ex.X2 to Ex.X5 were marked.
8) At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the
material available on record, the Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle auto
and, accordingly, allowed the claim petition in part and
awarded an amount of Rs.57,000/- with interest at 7% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of realization
against the respondents. Aggrieved against the order
passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/petitioner preferred
the present appeal for claiming remaining balance of
compensation amount.
9) Heard learned counsels for both the parties and
perused the record.
10) Now, the point for determination is:
i) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any
interference of this Court?
ii) Whether the appellant/claimant is entitled to the
remaining balance compensation, as prayed for in
the claim application?
11) POINT: In order to prove rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the offending vehicle auto, the petitioner
relied on his testimony as PW1. The evidence of PW1
coupled with Ex.A1 - attested copy of F.I.R. and Ex.A3 -
attested copy of charge-sheet clearly proves about the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle
auto. The Tribunal also arrived at the same conclusion.
Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the said finding
given by the Tribunal.
12) Coming to the compensation. In order to prove the
injuries on the petitioner, the petitioner relied on the
evidence of the PW2 and PW3 - the doctors, who treated
the petitioner. Both the doctors are Government Doctors
working in District Hospital, Eluru. The evidence of PW2
goes to show that, because of the injuries the petitioner is
suffering with disability of '40%' and the petitioner suffered
one grievous injury and two simple injuries. The material
on record reveals that PW2 - Dr.A.V.R. Mohan, conducted
two operations on the petitioner's leg and the petitioner
underwent treatment from 17.01.2004 to 28.02.2004,
which shows that the petitioner was hospitalized for a
period of nearly 40 days.
13) On considering the evidence of PW2 and PW3,
coupled with documentary evidence on record, an amount
of Rs.20,000/- was awarded towards one 'grievous injury'
and an amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards 'pain
and suffering' for two simple injuries. An amount of
Rs.3,000/- was awarded towards 'transport charges',
Rs.6,000/- was awarded towards 'extra-nourishment of
food' and Rs.1,000/- towards 'damages to clothes and
articles'. I do not find any illegality in awarding the above
compensation under the relevant heads awarded by the
Tribunal.
14) As stated supra, the petitioner underwent treatment
as in-patient approximately for 40 days. Therefore, an
amount of Rs.6,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of income'
during the period of treatment. The evidence of PW2 and
PW3 and so also Ex.A6 goes to show that that the disability
sustained by the petitioner is '40%' only. The law is well
settled that, 'disability of a particular limb cannot be treated
as disability of whole body'.
15) On considering the entire material on record, I am of
the considered view that the disability suffered by the
petitioner is only 20%. As rightly held by the Tribunal that
the notional income of the petitioner was Rs.36,000/- per
annum [Rs.3,000/- x 12] and applied correct multiplier of
'18', since the petitioner is aged about 25 years and,
therefore, an amount of Rs.1,29,600/- [Rs.36,000/- x
20/100 x 18] is awarded towards 20% disability sustained
by the petitioner. In addition to the above, an amount of
Rs.2,000/- was awarded towards 'attendant charges'. In
total, the appellant/claimant is entitled to total
compensation of Rs.1,77,600/-.
16) It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was
insured with the 2nd respondent/insurance company and
the policy is in force and the driver of the offending auto is
having valid driving license by the date of accident and the
Tribunal fastened the liability against the respondents.
Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the said finding
given by the Tribunal.
17) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claim
of Rs.57,000/- awarded by Tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.1,77,600/-. The claimant is entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,20,600/- with interest @ 7% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of recalization.
The 2nd respondent/the National Insurance Company
Limited, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation
of Rs.1,20,600/- with interest at 7% per annum, as
ordered above, within two months from the date of this
judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to
withdraw the same along with interest therein. No order as
to costs.
18) As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
in the Appeal shall stand closed.
_____________________________
V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J
Date: 30.10.2023
Sm..
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No. 675 of 2023
Date: 30.10.2023
sm
