Jadav Thaoriya Kour Singh vs Ghule Naga Rao And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1227 Tel

                THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                   M.A.C.M.A. No.2958 of 2007

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant aggrieved by

the judgment and decree, dated 20.02.2007 passed in O.P.No.1104

of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II

Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad (for short,

the Tribunal), seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred

to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the

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

that on 03.08.2003 while the claimant, along with others, were

traveling in an auto bearing No.AP 1 T 7594 from Basar to

Sathanumbergaom Village, when the auto reached near Gouliguda

bus stage, the driver of the auto drove it in a rash and negligent

manner at high speed and lost control over the same, due to

which, the auto went off the road and turned, turtle, as a result of

which, the claimant and other inmates of the auto sustained

injuries. Since the accident occurred due to the rash and

GSD, J Macma_2958_2007

negligent driving of the driver of auto, the claimant filed aforesaid

O.P. against respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the owner and

insurer of the aforesaid auto, respectively.

4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained filed

counter, denying the averments in the petition including the

manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and

income of the claimant. It is also denied the injuries sustained by

the claimant. It is further stated that the vehicle was insured with

the 2nd respondent and the policy was in force as on the date of the

accident and if any compensation is awarded, the same will be

paid by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. It is also stated

that the compensation claimed is excessive and out of all

proportions and prayed to dismiss the claim-petition against him.

5. The 2nd respondent also filed written statement denying the

averments in the petition, manner of accident, age, occupation

and income of the claimant and also the injuries said to have been

sustained by the claimant. It is also contended that the driver of

the auto was not having valid and effective driving licence as on

the date of the accident and the auto was overloaded with the

GSD, J Macma_2958_2007

passengers at the time of accident, as such, the 2nd respondent is

not liable to pay any compensation. It is further contended that

the compensation claimed is excessive and abnormal.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are

framed before the Tribunal:-

1) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the Auto bearing No.AP 01 T 7594 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so, what amount and from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

7. During trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.W.1 was examined

and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the respondents,

R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. 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 Auto

and accordingly, awarded total compensation of Rs.3,000/- with

interest @ 7.5% per annum. Being not satisfied with the said

amount, the claimant filed the present appeal seeking

enhancement of compensation.

GSD, J Macma_2958_2007

9. Heard both sides and perused the record.

10. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the

Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Auto by its driver,

to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.1

coupled with the documentary evidence, has categorically

observed that the accident in question was occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e., Auto by its

driver and has answered in favour of the claimant and against the

respondents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the

finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of Auto bearing No.AP 01 T

7594.

11. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as per

Ex.A1, the claimant had sustained injury over left knee and he took

treatment in Government Hospital, Adilabad. Since the claimant is

a labourer, and due to injury to left knee he might have some

inconvenience at the time of doing his labour work. Therefore, in

the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that

GSD, J Macma_2958_2007

claimant is entitled to Rs.20,000/- on all the heads instead of

Rs.3,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal.

12. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by enhancing

the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.3,000/-

to Rs.20,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5%

per annum from the date of award i.e., 20.02.2007 till the date of

realization. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall

stand closed.

__________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 17.03.2022 gkv/trr