Mavireddy Subba Rao vs M.Veera Bhaskar Rao
2024 Latest Caselaw 4731 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Mavireddy Subba Rao vs M.Veera Bhaskar Rao on 25 June, 2024

APHC010251922016

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
                                                                      3364
                          TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE
                             TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                    PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRA BABU
  MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.161 OF 2016

Between:
Mavireddy Subba Rao,
S/o.Veerraju, Hindu,
Aged 35 Years, R/o.D.No.2-27,
Murari Village, Gandepalli Mandal,
East Godavari District.                       ---       Appellant
                                              and
1. M. Veera Bhaskara Rao,
   S/o.Rajarao, Hindu,
   Aged 36 Years, Driver of Tractor
   and Trailer No.AP 05 BT 5947 &
   AP 05 AB 5937, R/o.D.No.1-212,
   Dosakayalapalli, Korukonda Mandal,
   West Godavari District.

2. Sunkavilli Satyanarayana,
   S/o.Sanyasi Rao, Hindu,
   Aged 45 Years, Owner of Tractor
   and Trailer No.AP 05 BT 5947 &
   AP 05 AB 5937, R/o.D.No.7-13/3,
   Main Road, Murari Village,
   Gandepalli Mandal, East Godavari
   District.

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
   Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
   Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.  ---            Respondents

The Court made the following Judgment:

Challenge in this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the Judgment, dated 02.12.2015, in M.V.O.P. No.389 of 2014 on the file of Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-

AVRB,J

cum-Principal District Judge at Rajahmundry (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereunder the Tribunal dealing with the claim of compensation sought by the petitioner to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the injuries received by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 04.04.2013, awarded a sum of Rs.56,550/- towards compensation.

2. The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim, before the Tribunal, is that on 04.04.2013 at 09:30 p.m. the petitioner along with other coolies were travelling in tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 05 BT 5947 & AP 05 AB 5937 proceeding towards Burugupudi village. The first respondent drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control over the same due to which, the tractor and trailer turned turtle. One coolie by name Akula Durga Rao @ Durga died on the spot. The petitioner sustained severe injuries to his right hand, abrasion over abdomen, crush injuries to left leg, left hand, right leg and abrasion over face and multiple injuries to the entire body. He underwent treatment in Siddhartha Orthopaedic Hospital, Rajahmundry and spent Rs.50,000/- towards medicines and other expenses.

4. The Korukonda Police registered a case in Crime No.46 of 2013 under Sections 304-A & 338 IPC. The injured was hale and healthy and was 35 years old by the time of accident. He used to

AVRB,J

earn Rs.300/- per day as jattu coolie. The first respondent being the driver, second respondent being the owner, and third respondent being the insurer of tractor bearing No.AP 05 BT 5947, trailer bearing No.AP 05 AB 5937 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the petition.

5. First respondent, driver of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte.

6. Second respondent, owner of the offending vehicle, filed counter resisting the petition and contending that the first respondent is an experienced driver having valid driving license and the vehicle is validly insured with the third respondent and the policy was in force and the compensation, if any, may be awarded against the third respondent. The petitioner has to prove the injuries and disability suffered by him.

7. Third respondent, insurer of the offending vehicle, filed a counter resisting the petition and contending that as per policy conditions the coolies are not covered while they are in transit and admittedly the petitioner was a loading and unloading coolie and the accident was occurred in between Dosakayalapalli to Burugupudi village and he was an un-authorized passenger in the vehicle and the policy conditions were violated and hence it is not liable to pay compensation. The petitioner has to prove the manner of accident, age, earnings and the injuries suffered by him. The compensation claimed is excessive and arbitrary.

AVRB,J

8. The Tribunal, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the petitioner Mavireddy Subba Rao sustained injuries in the road accident on 04.04.2013, if so, whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 05 BT 5947 and AP 05 AB 5937 respectively by the first respondent?

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

3. To what relief?

9. During the course of trial on behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal, PWs.1 and PW.2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-23 were marked. On behalf of the third respondent/insurer, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked.

10. The Tribunal, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.56,545/- which was rounded off to Rs.56,550/- towards compensation.

11. The petitioner feeling aggrieved that the compensation awarded is not just and reasonable, filed the present Appeal.

12. Now in deciding the present Appeal, the simple question that falls for consideration is:

AVRB,J

Whether the Judgment of the Tribunal, dated 02.12.2015, in M.V.O.P. No.389 of 2014, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-

cum-Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry in awarding compensation of Rs.56,550/- against the original claim of Rs.2,00,000/- is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?

POINT:

13. The main contention of Sri A. Sreeram, learned counsel, representing Sri T. D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the petitioner received as many as four crush injuries and three simple injuries. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.3,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.33,545/- towards medical expenses, Rs.3,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment and Rs.2,000/- towards attendant charges. The Tribunal fixed up the responsibility against the first and second respondents being the driver and owner only on the ground that the petitioner was an un-authorized passenger. He would submit that when the petitioner received four crush injuries and three simple injuries, awarding an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering is meager and it needs to be enhanced.

14. Sri K. Ashok Ramarao, learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer, would contend that the Tribunal rightly

AVRB,J

considered the entire facts and circumstances and awarded just compensation which needs no interference.

15. Since this is an Appeal filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation, and as there is no cross-objection filed by the respondents with regard to the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the scope of this Appeal is confined to decide the quantum of compensation.

16. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, he put forth the facts in tune with the pleadings and through his examination, Exs.A-1 to A-23 were marked. With regard to the fact that the petitioner was a coolie travelling in the tractor cum trailer as such he was an un- authorized passenger, the Tribunal recorded proper reasons in this regard. There was no seating capacity for coolies for travelling in the tractor and trailer as per the terms and conditions of insurance policy under Exs.B-1 and Ex.B-2. So, the Tribunal rightly fixed up the responsibility only against the first and second respondents being driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

17. Now, turning to the quantum of compensation, the petitioner got examined PW.2 - Orthopaedic Surgeon, who found the following injuries on the person of PW.1:

1) Crush injury to right hand

2) Abrasion over abdomen

3) Crush injury to left leg

AVRB,J

4) Crush injury to left hand

5) Abrasion over back

6) Crush injury to right leg and

7) Abrasion over face.

18. According to PW.2, the petitioner was in-patient in his hospital for 10 days i.e., from 04.04.2013 to 14.04.2013. According to PW.2, the injuries 1, 3, 4 and 6 are grievous in nature. So, it is a case where the petitioner received crush injuries to his right hand, left leg, left hand and right leg and abrasions over abdomen, back and over face. Though there were no fractures but the injuries are grievous in nature from the testimony of PW.2, coupled with Ex.A-2

- medico legal certificate. Apart from this, there were three other injuries i.e., abrasions over abdomen, back and over the face. So, when the petitioner sustained four grievous injuries which were treated by keeping the petitioner as in-patient for 10 days, awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering is totally meager.

19. Having regard to the above, awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- is reasonable for each grievous injury as such appropriate compensation in this regard is Rs.1,00,000/-. Further, as the petitioner received three simple injuries, a sum of Rs.10,000/- altogether for three simple injuries is just and reasonable. With regard to awarding compensation by the Tribunal under other heads it is just and reasonable and needs no interference.

20. Hence, the compensation which is to be awarded to the petitioner can be summarized as follows:

AVRB,J

1. Grievous injuries (four) Rs.1,00,000/-

2. Simple injuries (three) Rs.10,000/-

3. Loss of earnings Rs.3,000/-

4. Medical expenses Rs.33,550/-

5. Transportation and extra nourishment Rs.3,000/-

6. Attendant charges Rs.2,000/-

TOTAL Rs. 1,51,550/-

21. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.1,51,550/-.

22. In the result, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.56,550/- to that of Rs.1,51,550/- but with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

The respondents 1 and 2 shall deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within a period of one month from this date and on such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount in lump sum. No order as to costs.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date: 25.06.2024 DSH