Telangana High Court
Ankam Rushi vs P Raja Goud 2 Others on 21 February, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
MACMA No.647 of 2015
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.647 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act
aggrieved by the order passed in O.P.No.714 of 2011 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge),
Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter
referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation
of Rs.2,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor
accident. It is stated that on 30.03.2011, the petitioner was
travelling in an auto along with his wife and others and at about 6.40
pm, when they reached near poultry farm in Ugrawai village, the auto
being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against
unknown trolley auto, resulted in injuries to the petitioner and he
sustained fracture right humerus, fracture right leg knee and injuries
to hands, legs and other parts of the body. Later, the police of
Devanpally registered a case in crime No.82 of 2011 under Section
337 I.P.C. The petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital,
Kamareddy, and from there to Shashank Hospital, Nizamabad,
2 RRN,J
MACMA No.647 of 2015
wherein he was treated as an inpatient and underwent operations.
On account of injuries, the petitioner got permanent disability and
became dependent on others.
4. To prove his case, the petitioner on his behalf got examined
PWs.1 to 3, and marked Ex.A1 to A14. On behalf of respondent No.2
RW.1 was examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B7.
5. On appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that
though the petitioner is entitled to Rs.3,55,800/-, as he restricted his
claim to Rs.2,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,00,000/- as
compensation to him, directing the respondent Nos.1 and 3 only to
pay the same and dismissed the O.P. against the respondent No.2.
Questioning the liability and quantum, the present appeal has been
filed by the petitioner.
6. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal
erroneously fixed the liability on respondent Nos.1 and 3 only by
exonerating the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, and he relied
upon the decision rendered in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh and others1, wherein it was
held that the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award in
2004 ACJ 1
3 RRN,J
MACMA No.647 of 2015
favour of the third party at the first instance and then to recover the
awarded amount from the owner or driver of the vehicle even where
the Insurance Company could establish a breach of terms of the
policy on the part of the owner of the vehicle.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would
submit that as per the judgment of Swaran Singh (supra), in the
usual course, pay and recovery will be granted by the Courts, but he
has raised the objection with regard to the amount awarded under the
head Pain, suffering and trauma at Rs.60,000/- whereas the
Medical expenses are only at Rs.7,800/-. Generally, pain and
suffering will be a lesser amount than the medical bills.
9. It is observed by this Court that the Tribunal awarded excessive
compensation under the head Pain and Suffering and also disability
observing that PW.3 did not say the percentage of disability for the
whole body or the limb. The Tribunal further observed that he did
not say that the petitioner lost total earning capacity. As such, the
Tribunal awarded Rs.2,50,000/- under the head of disability.
However, the same is without any justification and is liable to be
altered. The Tribunal further restricted itself in awarding
Rs.2,00,000/- only with the observation that the claim of the
petitioner was confined to Rs.2,00,000/-. It is to be noted that there
would be no irregularity in awarding the enhanced compensation
4 RRN,J
MACMA No.647 of 2015
amount as against the claimed amount as it is well-settled law that
the awarded amount can be enhanced more than that of the claim as
per the principle of 'Just Compensation'. However, the appellant is
bound to deposit the deficit court fee upon the enhanced amount.
10. As such, this Court is of the considered view in granting
compensation to the petitioner as against the compensation
amount granted by the Tribunal as follows:
Head Amount awarded Amount
by Tribunal reduced/enhanced
by this Court
Pain and suffering Rs.60,000/- Rs. 30,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.7,800/- Rs.7,800/-
Transportation, Rs.18,000/- Rs.18,000/-
Extra nourishment
and attendant
charges
Loss of earnings Rs.20,000/- Rs. 20,000/-
Disability Rs.2,50,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
Total Rs.3,55,800/- Rs.2,75,800/-
(But awarded only
(Rounded off to
Rs.2,00,000/-) Rs.2,76,000/-)
11. The main grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the
exoneration of respondent No.2/Insurance Company from the liability.
In view of the ratio laid down in Swaran Singh (supra), this Court is
inclined to fix the liability on respondent No.2/Insurance Company as
5 RRN,J
MACMA No.647 of 2015
well with a liberty to recover the amount from the respondent Nos.1
and 3.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order
against respondent No.2 in M.V.O.P.No.714 of 2011, dated 24.02.2015
passed by the Tribunal and enhancing the compensation amount from
Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.2,76,000 /- (Rupees Two Lakh and Seventy Six
Thousand Only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till
the date of realization. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the
above said amount with interest and costs within one month from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It is open
for respondent No.2, to recover the above said amount from
respondents Nos.1 and 3. The petitioner is directed to pay the
deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount within
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
21st day of February, 2023
PNS
