Boodida Bhoomaiah vs Pullaiaghari Beera Reddy Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 5221 Tel

      HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

            M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2358 and 3656 of 2014

COMMON JUDGMENT:

      Since both the appeals are arising out of the same

judgment, they are heard together and being disposed of by this

common judgment.


2.    While M.A.C.M.A.No.2358 of 2014 is filed by the claimant

seeking enhancement of compensation, M.A.C.M.A.No.3656 of

2014 is filed by the United Insurance Company Limited,

assailing the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2013 made in

M.V.O.P.No.593 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District

and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Sangareddy (for short

"the Tribunal").


3.    For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.


4.    Brief facts of the case are that on 02.06.2009 while the

claimant, along with his son, was returning to his village

Chitkul with bullock cart, at about 9:00 p.m., when they

reached in front of Rice Mill in the limits of Muthangi, Lorry

bearing No.AP 22 T 8786, owned by respondent No.1, insured

with respondent No.2, being driven by its driver in rash and

negligent manner at high speed, dashed the bullock cart. As a

result, the claimant sustained multiple injuries and the cart was

completed damaged and one of the bull died on the spot. The

claimant was treated at Sai Ganesh Hospital, Patancheru, by

incurring huge amount towards treatment. The Police,

Patancheruvu police station, registered a case in Crime No.265

of 2008 against the driver of the Lorry, for the offences

punishable under Sections 338 and 279 of I.P.C. Since the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the Lorry, the claimant filed the claim-petition against

the respondent Nos.1 and 2, claiming compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/-.

5. While the respondent No.1 remained ex parte, the

respondent No.2 contested the claim-petition. The Tribunal

after considering the claim and the counter filed by respondent

No.2 and after evaluation of the evidence brought on record,

allowed the O.P. in part awarding a sum of Rs.41,000/- together

with interest at 7.5% per annum, to be paid by respondent

Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the

claimant as well as the insurance company filed the present

appeals.

6. Heard and perused the material available on record.

7. Learned counsel for the claimant has contended that

though the claim was for Rs.2,00,000/-, the Tribunal has

granted a meagre amount of Rs.41,000/- without considering

the fact that the claimant used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month

by doing agriculture and sending the bullock cart on hire basis.

In the absence of any contra evidence adduced by the insurance

company, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the total

compensation as claimed by the claimant. It is further

contended that due to the accident, the claimant has suffered

grievous injuries such as lacerated injury to right temporal

region and abrasion to left shoulder apart from other injuries all

over the body and he had to incur huge amounts towards

treatment.

8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing

for the Insurance Company has contended that although there

is no coverage of policy for the dead bullock and bullock cart,

the Tribunal had erroneously awarded the compensation, which

is against the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further

contended that the Tribunal has erred in considering the fact

that the accident was occurred due to the contributory

negligence on the part of the claimant.

9. 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 vehicle by its

driver, and after considering the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with

the documentary evidence, Ex.A1, F.I.R., Ex.A2, charge sheet

and Ex.A4-scene of offence, the Tribunal has categorically

observed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry and has answered the

issue 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.

10. Insofar as the contention of the learned Standing Counsel

for the Insurance Company that the bull and bullock cart are

not covered by Ex.B1 is concerned, as observed above, the

accident occurred due to the sheer rash and negligence of the

driver of the Lorry and Ex.B1 policy was very much in force by

the time of the accident. Such being the case, the insurance

company cannot escape from liability of payment of

compensation.

11. Coming to the quantum of compensation, due to the

impact of the accident, admittedly one bull died and the bullock

cart was totally damaged which is the source of income of the

claimant, for which, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of

Rs.25,000/-. As per Ex.A3, Medical Certificate, the claimant

has sustained lacerated injury to right temporal region and

abrasion to left shoulder. Considering the evidence of P.W.1

and Ex.A3, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for

simple injuries, Rs.5,000/- for extra nourishment and

medicines, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and

Rs.1,000/- towards transportation charges. As seen from

Ex.A5, Post Mortem Examination Report, one bull died.

According to the claimant, he used to generate income by giving

the bullock cart on hire basis apart from ploughing the lands.

As seen from Ex.A4, scene of offence, the bullock cart was

completely damaged. In such circumstances, it can be

presumed that the claimant might have sustained substantial

financial loss as the bullock cart was his source of income.

Considering all these circumstances and considering the

injuries sustained by the claimant, this Court is inclined to

enhance the compensation from Rs.41,000/- to Rs.80,000/-

under all the heads.

12. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.3656 of 2014 filed by the

Insurance Company is dismissed and the M.A.C.M.A.No.2358 of

2014 filed by the claimant is allowed in part enhancing the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.41,000/- to Rs.80,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry

interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the judgment passed by

the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondent

Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The Insurance Company is

directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a

period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

Judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to

withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_____________________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 20.10.2022 Tsr