Shaik Mohammed vs Smt. R.R.Prameelamma
2023 Latest Caselaw 1062 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.1194 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant against the award

dated 08.09.2006 made in M.V.O.P.No.543 of 2003 on the file of

the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under Scheduled

Castes & Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short, 'the

Tribunal').

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

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The claimant filed the O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs for the

injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicle accident that took

place on 23.09.2002. According to the claimant, on 23.09.2002

at about 09.00 a.m., while he along with his friends, was

returning to Mahabubnagar on splendour bike bearing No.AP-

22-E-7975 after attending personal work at Nagarkurnool, and

when they reached Velgonda bus stage on PWD Road, at about

08.15 p.m., one tractor bearing No.AP-22-T-5422 with trolley

No.AP-22T-5423 came in rash and negligent manner with high

speed and dashed the bike from opposite direction. As a result,

he received grievous injuries, became unconscious.

                                                                  MGP, J
                                   2                    Macma_1194_2014

Immediately, he was initially treated at Government Hospital,

Mahabubnagar and later at Osmania General Hospital,

Hyderabad, for intensive care. According to the claimant, he was

studying intermediate 2nd year and earning Rs.2,000/- per

month by doing private job. Due to the said injury, he suffered

amputation of right leg, fracture to right clavical injury on the

hand, injuries on both legs and lost his income and lost one

precious academic year. Thus, he laid the claim for

Rs.2,00,000/- for the injury sustained by him against the

respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally, who are owner and

insurer of the crime vehicle.

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

No.2 filed counter stating that crime vehicle is not at all involved

in the accident and the claimant had not submitted any record

to show his age and earning capacity. It is further contended

that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and

therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.

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

following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred on 23.09.2002 at about 08.15 p.m., within the limits of Bijinepally P.S. near Velgonda village bus stage on PWD road was due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing No.AP 22 T 5422 by its driver and whether it is resulted in causing injuries to the petitioner?

MGP, J 3 Macma_1194_2014

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount, and from whom?

3. To what relief?

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

Exs.A1 to A10 were marked on behalf of the claimant. On

behalf of respondent No.2, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was

marked.

7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available

on record, the Tribunal has dismissed the O.P. on the ground

that the claimant failed to prove the involvement of the tractor

in the alleged accident.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and

the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-

Insurance. Perused the material available on record.

9. The learned Counsel for the claimant has contended that

the tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence brought on record

in proper perspective. It is contended that the Police after due

investigation into the Crime No.84 of 2002, laid the charge

sheet, Ex.A3, against the driver of the offending tractor, which

prima facie establishes that the appellant sustained injuries in

the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the

offending tractor.

                                                              MGP, J
                                4                   Macma_1194_2014

10. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel

appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2-Insurance Company

sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal

contending that considering the oral and documentary evidence

on record, the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.P.

and the same needs no interference by this Court.

11. There is no dispute that the accident took place on

23.09.2002 at about 2100 hours. As seen from Ex.A.1, FIR, one

Janardhan Goud, lodged complaint with the Police on

23.09.2002 at 2140 hours stating that one unknown tractor hit

the Splendor Bike bearing No. AP 22E 7975 and that three

persons received injuries. Subsequently, Police after concluding

investigation into the crime, laid the Charge Sheet as in Ex.A.3

before the concerned Magistrate to the effect that the driver of

the offending tractor caused the accident. Admittedly, the

accident took place at 2100 hours and there is every possibility

for the eyewitness i.e., Janardhan Goud, for not noticing

number of the vehicle. However, in his report, he has

categorically mentioned that some unknown tractor hit the

motorcycle. Thus, it is clear that the 'unknown vehicle' is the

tractor.

                                                               MGP, J
                                  5                  Macma_1194_2014

12. It is to be noted that in a claim for compensation under

Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant has to

prove the incident only on preponderance of probabilities and

the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required

as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision rendered

in Bimla Devi Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation1.

After the investigation, the investigating officer has filed charge

sheet against the rider of the offending tractor concluding that

the accident occurred only due to his negligence involving the

offending tractor. In view of above reasons, the tribunal should

have held that the appellant sustained injuries due to the rash

and negligent driving of the offending tractor bearing No.AP 22T

5422 by its driver. Hence, this Court, based on Exs.A.1 and

A.3, concludes that the accident occurred only due to the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor

bearing No. AP 22T 5422.

13. Since this Court has decided that it is the offending

tractor that has caused the accident, now this Court is inclined

to determine the compensation based on the evidence adduced

before the Tribunal. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the

claimant was aged about 20 years, pursuing Intermediate II-

Year and earning Rs.2,000/- by doing private job. A perusal of

Ex.A2, wound certificate, discloses that the claimant had

AIR 2009 SC 2819 MGP, J 6 Macma_1194_2014

suffered amputation of right leg, fracture to right clavical injury

on the hand, injuries on the both legs, other injuries all over the

body. For the treatment of the said injuries, according to the

claimant, he had spent Rs.1,00,000/-. However, no medical

bills to that effect were produced before the Court. In fact,

according to him, he had taken treatment at Government

Hospital, Mahabubnagar and Osmania General Hospital,

Hyderabad, where the treatment is at free of cost. However,

considering the nature of injuries and the amputation of leg,

this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards

pain and suffering; Rs.50,000/- towards injuries; Rs.40,000/-

towards medicines and follow up treatment and Rs.40,000/-

towards transportation, attendant charges and extra

nourishment. Furthermore, as the right leg of the claimant was

amputated, certainly he must have incurred some amount for

purchase of artificial leg. Therefore, towards cost of artificial

leg, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Furthermore, so far as loss of amenities and loss of expectation

of life is concerned in Kavita v. Deepak and others2 the Apex

Court held that in respect of victims of accident, who are

disabled either permanently or temporarily, adequate

compensation should be awarded not only for the physical

injury and treatment but also for the loss of earning and

(2012) 9 SCC 604 MGP, J 7 Macma_1194_2014

inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which one

would have enjoyed had it not been for the disability. The

Supreme Court further held that the amount awarded under the

head of loss of earning capacity is distinct and does not overlap

with amount awarded for pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of

life and medical expenses. Relying upon the decision of

Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth

S.Dhananka3, the Apex Court also held that "assuming the

claimant's life expectancy to be 55 years, we deem it appropriate

to award a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under the head of loss of

amenities and loss of expectation of life".

In the instant case, since the claimant has lost his right

leg at the tender age of 20 years, this Court deems it fit to award

a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and loss of

expectation of life. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the

compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- which shall be paid by the

respondent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally with interest at 7.5%

per annum.

14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed setting aside the

impugned order of the tribunal. The claimant is granted

compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- which shall carry interest at

7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization,

(2009) 6 SCC 1 MGP, J 8 Macma_1194_2014

payable by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Time

to deposit the amount is one month from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to

withdraw the amount without furnishing any security. The

claimant shall pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced

compensation. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 03.03.2023 Gms/tsr MGP, J 9 Macma_1194_2014

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A.No.1194 of 2014

03.03.2023

Gms/tsr