Telangana High Court
Manchiryala Prathap vs M. Ram Reddy Anr. on 22 March, 2022
Bench: G Sri Devi
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No.5018 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant aggrieved
by the judgment and decree, dated 17.10.2005 passed in
O.P.No.1695 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Additional District Judge),
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.1,50,000/- for
the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It is
stated that on 15.07.2001, the claimant and one Mandaji
Rajeswar were proceeding on Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing
No.AP 25 G 2570 in order to go to Armoor and when they
reached Dasnagar Village Sivar, one Lorry bearing No.GJ 16 T
8682 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed the motor cycle. As a result of which, the claimant
GSD, J
Macma_5018_2008
sustained fracture to his left, fracture to right wrist and 5th
metatarsal bone, lower end of radius and injuries on right knee,
hand, legs, back, head, chest, ribs and other parts of the body.
Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Government Hospital,
Nizamabad and thereafter he took treatment in a private
nursing home and he has incurred Rs.40,000/- towards
medicines and other charges. Since the accident occurred due
to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry, the
claimant filed aforesaid O.P. against respondent Nos.1 and 2,
who are the owner and insurer of the aforesaid Lorry,
respectively.
4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent filed written
statement contending that the accident occurred only due to
the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the Motor Cycle
and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of
the lorry. It is also stated that since the lorry was insured with
the 2nd respondent and the policy was in force as on the date of
the accident, as such, the 2nd respondent alone is liable to pay
the compensation, if any awarded.
GSD, J
Macma_5018_2008
5. The 2nd respondent filed written statement denying the
averments in the petition including the manner in which the
accident took place, nature of injuries sustained by the
claimant. It is also contended that there was contributory
negligence on the part of the rider of the Motor Cycle.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are
framed before the Tribunal:-
1) Whether the accident due to rash and negligent
driving of the Lorry bearing No.GJ 16 T 8682 by its
driver?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If
so, to what just amount and against hich of the
respondents?
3) To what relief?
7. During trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.W.1 was
examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the
respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1-copy of
insurance policy was marked.
8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident
GSD, J
Macma_5018_2008
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the
Auto and accordingly, awarded total compensation of Rs.6,000/-
with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Being not satisfied with the
said amount, the claimant filed the present appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation.
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 Lorry 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., Lorry 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 Lorry.
GSD, J
Macma_5018_2008
11. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as
per Ex.A4-wound certificate, the claimant had injuries on the
left foot, right wrist and right knee and he took treatment in
the hospital as outpatient. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court feels that claimant is entitled to
Rs.20,000/- on all the heads instead of Rs.6,000/- 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.6,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. The enhanced amount shall
carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of award i.e.,
17.10.2005 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
22.03.2022
gkv
