Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nakka Laxminarayana, vs Guddi Trinadha Rao, on 1 May, 2024
APHC010263402019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
[3364]
AT AMARAVATI
WEDNESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRA BABU
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:
834/2019
Between:
1. NAKKA LAXMINARAYANA,, S/O LATE. BHEEMANNA,
AGED 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION CULTIVATION,
RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.1/1, SHEKARAPURAM VILLAGE,
MELIAPUTTI MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. GUDDI TRINADHA RAO, S/O LATE. DALAYYA, AGED 48
YEARS, HINDU, DRIVER OF CAR BEARING NO.AP 30 AG
1242, RESIDING AT IN SC VEEDHI, KOTTURU VILLAGE
AND MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
2. SMT A VIJAYASRI, W/O ARUN KUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS,
OWNER OF CAR BEARING NO.AP 30 AG 1242,
KUNTIBADRA VILLAGE, SIRUSUVADA POST, KOTTURU
MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SRIKAULAM
...RESPONDENT(S):
The Court made the following:
2
JUDGMENT:
-
Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated
29.011.2018, in M.V.O.P.No.264 of 2017, on the file of the
Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional
District Judge, Srikakulam („Tribunal‟ for short), whereunder the
Tribunal dealing with claim for compensation made by the claimant
for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, towards compensation, with regard to
the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, which was
occurred on 29.09.2016 at 12.00 Noon, on B.T.Road, near petrol
bunk and Sri Sri Sri Neelamani Durga Temple, Pathapatnam,
Srikakulam District, awarded compensation to a tune of
Rs.1,74,000/-.
2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to
as described before the learned Tribunal for the sake of
convenience.
3. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal, in brief,
according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicle accident
claim, is that:
(i) The petitioner is the injured. Respondent No.1 is the
driver of the offending car bearing No.AP 30 AG 1242 („offending
vehicle‟ for short). Respondent No.2 is its owner. Respondent No.3
is the insurer of the offending vehicle, for which they issued a policy.
(ii) On 29.09.2016, at 11.30 a.m., the petitioner boarded
the auto bearing No. AP 31 TW 5296 at Pathapatnam bus stand to
go to Tamara Village. At about 12.00 Noon, it reached the place of
accident. Respondent No.1, the driver of the accident car bearing
No.AP 30 AG 1242 came from Paralakhimundi side i.e., in the same
direction of the auto. He drove his car in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed the auto in its backside. Then the auto turned
turtle. Petitioner and others fell down on the road and received
injuries.
(iii) Station House Officer of Pathapatnam police station
filed a case in Crime No.73 of 2016, under sections 338 IPC and
investigated into and filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.60 of 2017.
(iv) Petitioner received grievous injuries on his right upper
eye brow, right ankle joint and fracture injury of right parietal bone.
He was shifted to Government Hospital, Pathapatnam. From there
to RIMS General Hospital, Srikakulam. Doctors advised to shift him
to K.G.H. Visakhapatnam. Family members admitted the petitioner
in K.G.H. Visakhapatnam, where he underwent treatment for a
period of fifteen (15) days as inpatient. He spent Rs.98,198/-
towards medical expenses. He took treatment for a period of six (06)
months, once in a fortnight. He incurred amounts towards extra-
nourishment and travelling expenses. He suffered lot of pain and
mental agony. Hence, the petition for compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/-.
4. (i) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 got filed their separate written
statements. Respondent No.1 adopted the written statement of
respondent No.2.
(ii) The contention of respondent No.2 is that the petitioner
has to prove the allegations according to the pleadings. Respondent
No.2 insured the car with respondent No.3 and the policy was in
force. Respondent No.1 has valid driving license. The accident took
place, due to the negligence of the auto driver. Hence, the petition is
to be dismissed.
(ii) The contention of respondent No.3, according to the
written statement filed is that the accident took place due to
overload of the accident auto. Auto driver drove the same in a rash
and negligent manner and turned turtle of the auto. There was no
fault on the part of the driver of the car. The compensation claimed
is excessive, as such the claim is liable to be dismissed.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the
following issue for trial:
(1) Whether the accident occurred was due to rash and
negligent act of respondent No.1-driver of car bearing No. AP
30 AG 1242?
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for?
If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
(3) Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary
parties?
(4) To what relief?
6. During the course of trial, before the Tribunal, on behalf of the
petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 were examined. Exs.A1 to A8 were marked.
No evidence was let in for the respondents.
7. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the
oral as well as documentary evidence, answered the issues in
favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, awarded a sum
of Rs.1,74,000/-, towards compensation.
8. Felt aggrieved that the compensation so awarded by the
Tribunal is not just and reasonable, the petitioner/claimant filed the
present M.A.C.M.A., for enhancement of compensation.
9. As against the findings of the Tribunal that the accident was
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving made by the driver of
the offending vehicle i.e., respondent No.1, no cross-objection or
appeal is filed. So, the scope of the present M.A.C.M.A. is limited.
10. Hence, in deciding the present M.A.C.M.A., the simple
question that arises for determination is as follows:
"Whether the petitioner/appellant is entitled to enhancement
of compensation?"
POINT:
11. Sri K.J.V.N.Pundareekakshudu, learned counsel for the
appellant, started arguing on 21.03.2024 and when this Court posed
a question that it appears that the petitioner did not sustain disability
and that the Tribunal considered the medical expenditure claimed
and awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/-, towards one grievous injury and
two simple injuries and further awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/-,
towards of loss of earnings, and Rs.10,000/-, towards extra
nourishment, learned counsel for the appellant sought time and
later, did not turn up to advance further arguments.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the respondents, the
matter is coming up for pronouncement of judgment.
13. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant on
21.03.2024 is that, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of
Rs.1,74,000/-, which is not reasonable under the circumstances and
the petitioner incurred medical expenditure and received grievous
injuries and he was earning Rs.5,000/-, per month and the Tribunal
did not award proper compensation.
14. Sri C.Upendra, learned counsel, representing T.V.Sri Devi,
learned counsel for the respondent No.3, seeks to support the
award of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal rightly
awarded just compensation and there is no need to interfere with
the same.
15. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, who was the
petitioner/claimant, he in his chief examination, put forth the facts in
tune with the pleadings. Through his examination, Exs.A1 to A8
were marked. Ex.A1 was the certified copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.73
of 2016 of Pathapatnam police station. Ex.A2 was the certified copy
charge sheet in CC No.60 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Pathapatnam. Ex.A3 was the certified
copy of wound certificate of the petitioner. Ex.A4 was the certified
copy of Motor Vehicles Inspector report. Ex.A5 were bunch of
medical bills for Rs.97,890/-, Ex.A6 were X-rays 3 in number. Ex.A7
were lab reports issued by KIMS Hospital, Srikakulam. Ex.A8 was
the case sheet. The petitioner examined PW.2, who was the
medical officer, who gave treatment to him.
16. Turning to the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, firstly this Court would like to deal with the nature of the
injuries. According to the testimony of PW.1, he received an injury
on the right upper eyebrow, right ankle joint and he received fracture
of right parietal bone. As seen from Ex.A3-wound certificate,
petitioner sustained (1) laceration over right eye brow. (2) Abrasion
over right ankle foot and (3) Abrasion over scalp. The CT scan
findings shows subarchanold hemorrhage in left temporal suical
spaces and fracture of right parietal bone.
17. Apart from this, evidence of PW.2, goes to prove that he gave
treatment for fracture right parietal bone and the petitioner was
treated as inpatient in the hospital for five (05) days. Ex.A8 was the
case sheet. Ex.A6-three (03) X-ray films. Ex.A7-lab reports. By
virtue of evidence of PWs.1 and 2, coupled with Exs.A6 to A8, the
petitioner sustained fracture of right parietal bone. Apart from this,
he also received one grievous injury and two simple injuries.
18. Turning to the compensation for the grievous injury, as well as
simple injuries, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/-, together.
An amount of Rs.25,000/-, is general amount granted for the two
simple injuries and one grievous injury and Rs.50,000/-, towards
pain and mental agony. The Tribunal considered to grant a sum of
Rs.83,000/-, in accordance with Exs.A5 to A7 medical bills, rightly.
Further the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-, towards
traveling expenses and extra nourishment. The Tribunal considered
the agricultural earnings of the petitioner as Rs.2,000/-, per month
and awarded loss of earnings of Rs.6,000/-, for a period of three
(03) months together.
19. It is a case where there was no disability caused to the
petitioner. So, what all the compensation that was awarded by the
Tribunal was on reasonable scale. The contention of the appellant
that the Tribunal awarded meager compensation cannot stand to
scrutiny. Absolutely there are no ground to interfere with the award,
dated 29.011.2018, in M.V.O.P.No.264 of 2017, on the file of the
Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional
District Judge, Srikakulam.
20. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, but under the
circumstances, without costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Dt.01.05.2024.
Vnb
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Date:01.05.2024
Vnb
