M/S.Shri Ram General Insurance ... vs M. Vasu
2022 Latest Caselaw 6362 Tel

          HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No.1519 of 2018

JUDGMENT:

Being dissatisfied with the order and decree passed by

the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in

M.V.O.P. No.2486 of 2014 dated 10.10.2017, M/s. Shriram

General Insurance Company Limited has filed the present

appeal.

2. According to the petitioner, on 29-04-2014 at about 10-00

p.m. while he was proceeding on his friend's motorcycle bearing

No. AP 28 BD 8611 towards Nagergul from Gurramguda village

and when he reached in front of rice mills, Gurramguda village,

one lorry bearing No. AP 05 U 7967 being driven by its driver

came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and

its driver lost control over it and dashed his motorcycle, as a

result of which, he fell down on the road and sustained grievous

injuries and fractures. Immediately he was shifted to NIMS,

Hyderabad and admitted as in-patient, underwent major operation

and spent more than Rs.3,50,000/- towards his treatment and

medical expenses. Due to the said injuries, he became

MGP, J MACMA.No.1519 of 2018

permanently disabled and could not attend his work and cannot

walk freely. Thus, he is claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-

under various heads.

3. Respondent No.1 set ex parte; Respondent No.2 filed

counter disputing the manner of accident, nature of injuries

sustained by the petitioner and further contended that the claim

is exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

1) Whether the injuries sustained by M.Vasu in motor accident occurred on 29-09-2014 are due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle lorry bearing No. AP.05.U.7967?

     2)     Whether the petitioner is entitled for
            compensation, if so, how much and from
            whom respondent?

     3)     To what relief?

5. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioner,

PWs.1 to 5 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A12 and

Ex.X1. On behalf of the respondent No.2-Insurance Company, no

witnesses were examined, however, Ex.B1 got marked.

MGP, J MACMA.No.1519 of 2018

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence available

on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.14,99,976/-

towards compensation along with proportionate costs and interest

at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of decree

and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realization to the

claimant against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and

severally.

7. Heard the learned Standing counsel for the appellant-

Insurance Company and the learned Counsel for respondent No.1-

claimant. Perused the material available on record.

8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal failed

to observe that the injured could not observe the vehicular traffic

and lost control over the motorcycle and dashed against the lorry

from the opposite direction and the Tribunal erred in holding that

the accident occurred only due to the negligent driving of the

driver of the lorry and that there is contributory negligence. It is

further contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of

the injured at Rs.10,000/- per month and awarded excessive

compensation.

MGP, J MACMA.No.1519 of 2018

9. The learned counsel for the claimant sought to sustain the

impugned award of the Tribunal contending that considering the

nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment

taken by him, the learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable

compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.

10. With regard to the manner of accident, though the learned

Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that

there is contributory negligence over both the vehicles, PW-1 who

is the injured categorically stated that on 29-9-2017 at about

10.00 p.m. he was riding the motorcycle and when he reached

near rice mill, Gurramguda village, lorry bearing No. AP 05 U 7967

came from the opposite direction at high speed and its driver lost

control over the vehicle and dashed the motorcycle. Further the

police after thorough investigation filed charge sheet against the

driver of the offending lorry. No contra evidence was produced by

the Insurance Company with regard to the manner of accident.

Therefore, considering the evidence of PW-1 coupled with the

documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that

the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of lorry. Now another dispute raised by the counsel for

MGP, J MACMA.No.1519 of 2018

Insurance Company in the present appeal is with regard to the

quantum of compensation.

11. As per the evidence available on record, according to the

petitioner, he was aged 21 years and studying 3rd year B.Tech in

Spurthi Engineering College. PW-1 deposed that he was treated as

in-patient in NIMS for the injuries sustained by him. PWs.2 to 4 are

Plastic Surgeon, Assistant Registrar and Orthopedic Surgeon at

NIMS respectively. According to their evidence, PW-1 suffered with

compound supra condylar fracture, right femur with libia fracture,

humorous fracture with closed middle third right ulna fracture and

fracture of distal end radius and other injuries and skin grafting was

done and that he spent Rs.87,260/- towards medical expenses and

then for some part of the treatment, it was done under Arogya Sree

Scheme of the State Government. Ex.A3 injury certificate shows that

PW-1 sustained four fracture injuries and considering the same, the

Tribunal awarded Rs.60,000/- @ Rs.15,000/- per each injury,

Rs.20,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.49,716/- towards

medical expenses and investigation charges, and Rs.8,000/- towards

ambulance charges.

12. With regard to the disability sustained by the petitioner,

PW.4 deposed that PW-1 suffers from 75% partial permanent

MGP, J MACMA.No.1519 of 2018

disability and PW-5 who is a Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, King

Koti also supported the same and issued Ex.A10 disability

certificate alleging that PW-1 suffers inability to write with right

hand and difficulty in walking and requires crutch and he could

not squat or sit on the floor and sustained permanent disability at

80%. However, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the

petitioner, the Tribunal has taken the disability of the claimant at

50% and considering educational qualification of PW-1, his

income has taken at Rs.10,000/- per month and awarded an

amount of Rs.10,20,000/- towards loss of his earning capacity.

Further the Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for

loss of marital prospects, Rs.50,000/- towards extra nourishment

and Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. Further an amount

of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of endowments and

beauty, which is not necessary as the petitioner was already

awarded adequate compensation under various heads. Thus in

all, the petitioner is awarded Rs.14,19,976/-, which is rounded off

to Rs.14,20,000/-.

13. With regard to the rate of interest, the Tribunal awarded

interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till realization, which is

MGP, J MACMA.No.1519 of 2018

not reasonable. Therefore, the rate of interest is fixed at 7.5% per

annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by reducing

the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs.14,20,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from

the date of petition till the date of realization against the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The amount shall

be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order. On such deposit, he is entitled to withdraw

the compensation amount without furnishing any security. No

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 02.12.2022 pgp