Cheela Jagadeeswar vs Mr. D. Krishna Murthy And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1743 Tel

            HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                    M.A.C.M.A.No. 1921 of 2007
                               AND
                    M.A.C.M.A.No. 5212 of 2008

     COMMON JUDGMENT:

                Aggrieved by the Award dated 03.08.2006 in

O.P.No. 1178 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court),

Nizamabad      at   Kamareddy,   the   Insurance    Company     filed

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1921 of 2007 and the claimant filed M.A.C.M.A. No.

5212 of 2008.


2.              The claimant filed the O.P. seeking compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle

accident.    It is the case of the claimant that on 03.03.2002, he

was going on TVS Scooty bearing No. AP 25 C 6279 as pillion rider

driven by one Sridhar towards Sircilla side from Old Bus Stand,

Kamareddy, when they reached near godown road chowrasta, the

rider of TVS scooty drove it on wrong side of the road and lost

control over it and dashed against the scooterist who was coming

on scooter bearing No. AP 25 C 1668, due to which, the claimant

fell down from the scooty and sustained injuries. He received

multiple fracture to right leg, dislocation of right hip joint and

dislocation of right knee joint, fracture of skull, fracture of ribs,

multiple and grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, he
                                   2




was shifted to Government Hospital, Kamareddy and spent

Rs.2,00,000/- for the treatment of the injuries sustained by him.

According to the claimant, he was working as commission agent

and running petrol pump at Kamareddy and was earning

Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the accident, he became

permanently-disabled and unable to walk and lost total earning

power.


3.             The owner of the TVS scooty filed the counter-

affidavit denying the averments made in the Petition.


4.             The Insurance Company filed the counter-affidavit

stating that the claimant did not furnish the copy of the Insurance

policy in respect of TVS scooty and denied that the said vehicle

was insured. It is stated that the liability of the Insurance

Company is strictly governed by the terms and conditions of the

policy and breach of conditions does not make this respondent

liable to pay the compensation. It is further stated that though

the driver was having a valid driving licence, unless the vehicle is

covered by valid fitness, road tax and permit, this respondent

cannot be held liable.


5.             The claimant in support of his case, examined

P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. Ex.C1 disability

certificate was also marked on behalf of the claimant. On behalf of
                                        3




the Insurance Company, Ex.R1 copy of insurance policy was

marked.


6.             The     Tribunal   on       consideration   of   the   entire

evidence, observed that after investigation, the police filed the

charge sheet against one Komma Sridhar, rider of TVS scooty for

riding it in a rash and rash and negligent manner causing injuries

to the claimant. On the basis of oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled

with the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 and A2, the

claimant has amply proved that he sustained injuries in the

accident. The Tribunal therefore, awarded Rs.60,000/- with future

interest thereon at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the

date of realisation.


7.             Learned     counsel     for    the   Insurance    Company

submits that the policy is an 'Act policy' and as per the 'Act policy',

the pillion rider is not covered and the owner of the vehicle is liable

to pay the compensation.          He submits that the Insurance

Company is not liable to pay the compensation and this aspect

was not considered by the Tribunal.


8.             Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the

Tribunal on the basis of the oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with

documentary evidence ie. Exs.A1 and A2 held that the claimant

proved that he sustained injuries in the accident.
                                    4




9.             On perusal of Ex.R1, it is clear that it is an 'Act

Policy' and as per the 'Act Policy', the pillion rider is not covered.

In view of the same, the order of the Tribunal as far as fastening

the liability on the Insurance Company is concerned is set aside.

and the owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay the

compensation. It is submitted that the Insurance Company has

already deposited half of the amount and the claimant has

withdrawn the said amount. If it is not withdrawn, the Insurance

Company can withdraw the said amount. If the same is withdrawn

by the claimant, the Insurance Company is at liberty to recover

the amount from the owner of the vehicle.


10.            The claimant sought enhancement of compensation

in M.A.C.M.A. No. 5212 of 2008. This Court in the Appeal filed by

the Insurance Company has already held that the Insurance

Company is not liable to pay the compensation and it is the owner

alone who has to pay the compensation.


11.            Coming to the enhancement of compensation,

according to the claimant, he has sustained two grievous injuries

in the accident ie. to right hip contusion about 3 x 3 cms. and

fracture of neck of femur. Further, the Tribunal has considered

only one injury and granted an amount of Rs.20,000/-. In view of

the evidence on record, this Court is inclined to grant for two

injuries at Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.40,000/- x 2 = Rs.80,000/-.
                                         5




12.            Coming to the loss of earnings, the Tribunal has

granted Rs.30,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering

which this Court is not inclined to interfere with. Under the heads

of attendant benefits, transport charges, extra nourishment, this

Court is inclined to grant Rs.10,000/- each.


13.            The    claimant     is       therefore,   entitled   to   the

compensation under the following heads:


      Head                                    Compensation awarded

  (1) For two injuries                              Rs.80,000/-
      (2 x Rs.40,000/-)
  (2) Loss of earnings                              Rs.30,000/-
      (Rs.5,000/- x 6 months)
  (3) Pain and suffering                            Rs.10,000/-
  (4) Transportation                                Rs.10,000/-
  (5) Extra nourishment                             Rs.10,000/-
  (6) Attendant benefits                            Rs.10,000/-
  (7) Legal expenses                                Rs.10,000/-

      Total                                         Rs.1,60,000/-

  10.          In the result, M.A.C.M.A. No. 1921 of 2007 is

  allowed and the order of the Tribunal as far as fastening the

  liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation is

  set aside. M.A.C.M.A. No. 5212 of 2008 is partly allowed

  enhancing the compensation from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.1,60,000/-

         (a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a.

         from the date of petition till the date of realization.

         (b) The owner of the vehicle shall deposit the amount

         within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
                                      6




            copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is

            entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing

            any security.

11.               Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.


                                           ------------------------------------

LALITHA KANNEGANTI,J 24th April 2023

ksld