Poladi Rama Rao vs Yepuri Srinivasa Rao 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5798 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A. No. 993 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

Being dissatisfied with the order and decree passed by

the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat at Karimnagar in

Permanent Lok Adalat Case No.7 of 2009 dated 18.04.2011,

the appellant/petitioner has filed the present appeal.

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

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the petitioner's case are that on 21.05.2008

the petitioner was returning home on his motorcycle bearing

No. AP.15.N.1640 and at about 11-20 a.m. when he reached

the outskirts of Vannaram village, lorry bearing No.

AP.16.TY.0529 being driven by its driver came in rash and

negligent manner with high speed from his back side and

dashed his motorcycle, as a result of which, he fell down and

suffered grievous injuries all over the body and immediately he

was shifted to NIMS, Hyderabad, in an ambulance, where he

was treated as inpatient from 21.5.2008 to 17.6.2008. Thus,

he claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under various

heads.

MGP,J Macma_993_2015

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte; Respondent

No.3 filed counter disputing the manner of accident and the

nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the

treatment taken by him. It is further contended that the driver

of the lorry had no driving license to drive the vehicle and as

such, they are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

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

following issues:

1. Whether on 21.5.2008 at 11-20 hours at the outskirts of Thadikal village, there was an accident involving vehicle bearing No. AP.16.TY.529 of R2?

2. Whether such accident was due to the negligent driving of driver of R1?

3. Whether that vehicle was insured with R3 and that insurance cover the nature of accident as stated in the petition?

4. Whether the petitioner received injuries as claimed in the petition in that accident?

5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, from whom and at what rage?

6. Whether there are any violations of the terms and conditions of the policy and if so what effect?

7. To what relief?

MGP,J Macma_993_2015

6. In order to prove the issues, PWs.1 and 2 were examined

and Exs.P1 to P5 got marked on behalf of the petitioner. On

behalf of respondent No.3, no witnesses were examined and no

documents were marked.

7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available

on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of

Rs.1,10,000/- towards compensation to the appellant-claimant

against the respondent No.2, while dismissing the claim

against the respondent Nos.1 and 3 along with proportionate

costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition

till the date of payment within 30 days from the date of award.

8. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant

and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3-

Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record.

9. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/

claimant submitted that although the claimant established the

fact that the petitioner sustained disability due to the injuries

caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager

amount. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to

MGP,J Macma_993_2015

appreciate the evidence on record and without there being any

evidence on behalf of the respondents to show that the driver

of the offending vehicle had no license, the Tribunal erred in

exonerating the liability of Insurance Company.

10. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.3-Insurance Company submitted that the

Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, has awarded reasonable compensation

against the respondent No.2 and the same needs no

interference by this Court. Therefore, the learned counsel

sought for dismissal of the appeal.

11. With regard to the manner of accident, there is no

dispute with regard to the manner of accident. However, after

evaluating the evidence of PW-1 coupled with the documentary

evidence produced by him, the Tribunal rightly held that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligence on the part

of the driver of the offending vehicle.

12. With regard to the quantum of compensation is

concerned, the evidence of PW-2 Doctor shows that the

MGP,J Macma_993_2015

petitioner was admitted on 21.5.2008 with crush injury of

right leg along with loss of skin and fracture of the lateral

ankle and dorhun of foot and was operated by Plastic Surgeon

under anesthesia for debridement, external fixations and skin

grafting etc. Thus the evidence of PW-2 shows that the

petitioner sustained one grievous injury and three simple

injuries. Therefore, considering the injuries sustained by the

petitioner, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded for one

grievous injury and Rs.15,000/- is awarded for three simple

injuries @ Rs.5,000/- for each simple injury. Further an

amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards pain and

sufferance, which is reasonable and the same is not disturbed.

Considering Ex.P5 medical bills and the treatment taken by

the injured, an amount of Rs.44,000/- is awarded towards

treatment and medical expenses. According to the petitioner,

he is an agriculturist and getting Rs.6,000/- per month. Since

there is no income proof, an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month

is taken as income and awarded Rs.9,000/- towards loss of

earnings for six months, which is very less. Therefore, the

income of the petitioner can be taken at Rs.4,500/- per month

MGP,J Macma_993_2015

and for six months, an amount of Rs.27,000/- is awarded

towards loss of earnings.

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

PW-2 deposed that all the injures healed leaving scars and

there was 25% reduction movement on right ankle since bony

injury was seckled by the Ortho Surgeon. But the Tribunal

awarded Rs.25,000/- in lump sum towards partial permanent

disability, which is very less. As stated above, the income of

the petitioner is taken at Rs.4,500/- per month. As per the

records, the claimant was aged about 68 years at the time of

accident. Then the appropriate multiplier in light of the

judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation1 would be "5". Thus, the future loss

of income due to 25% disability comes to Rs.4,500 x 12 x 5 x

25/100 = Rs.67,500/-, which the petitioner/claimant is

entitled. The petitioner is also entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards

extra nourishment, attendant and transport charges. Thus in

all, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,13,500/-which is just and

reasonable.

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

MGP,J Macma_993_2015

14. With regard to the liability, it is contended by the

appellant-Insurance Company that the driver of the offending

vehicle was not having valid driving license. As per Section

149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, heavy burden lies upon

the insurer to prove that the driver of the vehicle had no valid

driving license at the time of the accident. There is no

rebuttal evidence to show that the driver of the offending

vehicle was not having valid driving license. Further the

charge sheet was also filed against the driver of the crime

vehicle only for the offence under Section 338 IPC. As per the

principles laid down by the Apex Court in RUKMANI AND

OTHERS v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. AND OTHERS2,

when the insurer had failed to prove the defence raised in the

statement of objections, such a plea cannot be accepted.

When the police officer or the records are not summoned from

the transport authority to establish the fact that the driver of

the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective

driving license, then, under such circumstances, it has to be

held that the insurer has failed to discharge its burden. Under

these circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for

(1998) 9 SCC 160

MGP,J Macma_993_2015

the appellant/Insurance Company cannot be sustained and it

is hereby rejected. Further the Motor Vehicles Act is a

beneficial piece of legislation. Therefore, in view of the above

discussion, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally

liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

15. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part by

enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal

from Rs.1,10,000/- to Rs.2,13,500/-. The enhanced amount

shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of Order of the

Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondent Nos.

1 to 3 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 of compensation amount by the

respondents, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw the same

without furnishing any security. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 14.11.2022 pgp