Budigepaka Iddamma vs K. Vijaya Laxmi And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 422 Tel

                HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                  M.A.C.M.A. No. 2204 of 2011

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant aggrieved by

the order and decree, dated 31.08.2010 passed in O.P.No.886 of

2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-

cum-Additional District Judge (Special Sessions Judge for trial of

SC/STs (POA) Act Cases), Nalgonda (for short, the Tribunal).

For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred

to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the

injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated

that on 17.07.2006 while the claimant, along with her villagers

namely Jakinalapally Satyanrayana and Chitram Lalamma, were

proceeding in Auto bearing No.AP 24 V 2454 in order to go to

Devarakonda and when the auto reached Vusikebavi outskirts, one

Trolley Auto bearing No.AP 22 U 4874 driven by its driver in a rash

and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the auto,

in which the claimant and others were traveling. As a result of

which, the claimant and others sustained injuries and the claimant

sustained fractures to her hands and legs. Immediately after the

accident the claimant was shifted to Community Health Center,

Deverakonda and thereafter, she took treatment in a private

hospital and she incurred Rs.30,000/- for her treatment. Basing on

a complaint, a case in Crime No.61 of 2006 has been registered 2 GSD, J Macma_2204_2011

against the driver of the Trolley Auto bearing No. AP 22 U 4874.

The claimant filed aforesaid O.P. against respondent Nos.1 and 2,

being owner and insurer of the aforesaid Trolley Auto,

respectively, claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the

injuries sustained by her.

Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex parte

and the 2nd respondent also filed counter denying the averments of

the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is

excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are

framed before the Tribunal:-

1) Whether the claimant sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 22 U 4874?-

2) Whether the claimant is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

During trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were

examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the

respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1-Policy was

marked with consent.

After considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the

Trolley Auto bearing No.AP 22 U 4874, awarded total compensation

of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of 3 GSD, J Macma_2204_2011

petition till the date of realisation. Being not satisfied with the

said amount, the claimant filed the present appeal seeking

enhancement of compensation.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the

claimant is that though the Tribunal held that the claimant is

entitled to Rs.3,64,000/- towards compensation but awarded

Rs.2,50,000/- as the claimant restricted her claim at Rs.2,50,000/-

It is further submitted that since the Motor Vehicles Act is a

beneficial legislation and as per the law laid down by the Apex

Court, the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than

claimed.

A perusal of the material on record would show that in

paragraph No.8 while answering the issue No.2, the Tribunal has

given a categorical finding that the claimant is entitled to

Rs.3,64,000/- under various heads. Since the claimant has

restricted her claim at Rs.2,50,000/-, the Tribunal awarded a sum

of Rs.2,50,000/- only. The record also reveals that the claimant

has sustained 50% permanent disability.

In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another1, the Apex

Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh2 held as

under:

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 4 GSD, J Macma_2204_2011

"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."

In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to

above, the claimant is entitled to get more amount than what has

been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial

piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimant is a

paramount consideration the Tribunal should always endeavour to

extend the benefit to the claimant to a just and reasonable extent.

Therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs.3,64,000/- as assessed by

the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation

amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from

Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.3,64,000/-. The enhanced amount will carry

interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award by the

Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondents 1 and

2 jointly and severally. However, the claimant is directed to pay

deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

                                                 __________________
                                                 JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
03.02.2022
gkv
 5            GSD, J
    Macma_2204_2011