Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K V N Rao, W.Godavari Dist vs G Mallesh, Nalgonda Dist 3 Others on 21 October, 2024
APHC010774282016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3367]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL
NO: 1796/2016
Between:
K V N Rao, W.godavari Dist ...APPELLANT
AND
G Mallesh Nalgonda Dist 3 Others and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Appellant:
B V KRISHNA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. T MAHENDER RAO
2. RAMACHANDRAREDDY GADI
3. P RAMANJANEYULU
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman,
Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional
District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru (hereinafter called as
'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.367 of 2008 dated 04.02.2016.
2. The appellant is the injured claimant. Respondent Nso.1
to 3 are driver, owner and insurer of the Lorry bearing No.AP 4U
7832 (hereinafter referred to as "crime lorry"). The respondent
No.4 is the insurer of the Tavera vehicle bearing No.AP 5 AR
1234.
3. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the
Tribunal is that:
On 26.04.2007, while the petitioner was travelling in
Tavera Multipurpose Vehicle bearing No.AP 5 AR 1234
from Hyderabad to Kamavarapukota and when he
reached near Srirangapuram Bus Stage opposite to Citi
Central School, on N.H.9 road, Kodada Village, the
crime lorry driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed the said Tavera vehicle in
opposite direction, resulted the claimant sustained
with grievous injuries. The face of the claimant was
disfigured due to severe head injury and he underwent
multiple surgeries, spent not less than Rs.2,99,000/-
towards medical expenditure, thereby, claimed
compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- against the
respondents.
4. The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement
denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the 1st
respondent is not having valid driving license to drive the crime
lorry and that the quantum of compensation claimed by the
claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. The respondent No.4/insurer filed written statement
denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
1st respondent only, thereby, this respondent is liable to pay any
compensation to the claimant and prayed to dismiss the
petition.
6. The Tribunal settled the following issues and additional
issue for enquiry basing on the material:
"1.Whether the petitioner/injured sustained injuries in a
Motor vehicle accident on 26/27.04.2007 at about
2.30 A.M. due to rash and negligent driving of the
Lorry bearing No.AP 4U 7832, driven by its driver 1st
Respondent?
2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim
compensation? If so, to what amount and from which
of the Respondents? and
3.To what relief?"
Additional Issue:
Are there any violations in terms and conditions of
insurance policies?
7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 4
were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.12 were marked. On behalf of
respondent No.3, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1, X.1
to X.5 were exhibited.
8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the
conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash negligent
driving of the crime lorry by its driver, held that claimant is
entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,14,359/-, with interest at
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization against the respondent No.2, for the injuries
sustained by the claimant in the accident. In the absence of
valid driving license to the 1st respondent to drive the crime
lorry, in view of the insurance policy, the 3rd respondent is
directed to pay the awarded amount to the claimant at first
instance and entitled to recover the same from the 2nd
respondent in the same proceedings by filing an execution
petition.
9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was
preferred by the appellant/claimant.
10. Heard Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant/claimant and Sri P.Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel
for the 3rd respondent.
11. Now, the point that arise for determination is "whether
the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what
extent?"
12. POINT:
It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the
claimant in the incident, involvement of the crime lorry, rash,
and negligent driving of the crime lorry by the 1st respondent in
causing the incident and liability to pay the compensation to the
claimant. It is also not in dispute that no appeal was preferred
by respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein against the findings of the
Tribunal.
13. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant/claimant is that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the
material on record in proper perspective and erroneously
awarded such low compensation; that though the claimant
sustained grievous injuries and underwent very serious and
risky surgeries to the face and brain, no amount was awarded
to that effect; that the testimony of P.W.3 shows that there is
blood clot of 40 ml had to be evacuated only after making two
holes to the skull of the claimant, which is a major one, as
such, the claimant is entitled for compensation as claimed.
14. As against the same, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.3/insurer submits that on all grounds the
Tribunal discussed, by considering the material on record
granted compensation as entitled by the claimant and there are
no valid grounds urged by the claimant in the present appeal to
interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
15. In view of the above contentions, this Court perused the
entire material on record. The Tribunal has considered the fact
that the claimant sustained grievous injuries to the face as well
as major surgeries undergone by the claimant to the skull for
evacuating the blood clots. By considering all these facts, the
loss of income was taken into consideration and granted an
amount of Rs.2,25,000/-. Since he sustained grievous injuries,
the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards pain
and suffering, for nervous shock and loss of amenities awarded
an amount of Rs.50,000/- and it was awarded an amount of
Rs.1,62,359/- towards medical expenses. Furthermore, the
Tribunal also considered and awarded in total Rs.17,000/-
towards food and nutrition charges, attendant charges,
transport charges and damage to clothes. Nothing remained to
reconsider the issue and the Tribunal has considered all the
aspects and awarded just compensation.
16. Having regard to the above discussion, no interference
warrants to the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding all
aspects, since there is no need to disturb the well-articulated
order passed by the Tribunal, the appeal preferred by the
appellant/claimant is liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is
answered against the appellant.
17. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.
Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
Date: 21.10.2024
Krs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
DATE: 21.10.2024
Krs
