M/S Shriram General Insurance ... vs Bhukya Mantya Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1089 Tel

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                    M.A.C.M.A. No.1834 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the Shriram General insurance

Company Limited questioning the order and decree dated 25.11.2013

in M.V.O.P.No.679 of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (III Fast

Track Court), Warangal at Mahabubabad.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as

arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 26.03.2012 the claimant

along with other farmers in order to sell chilli produce in the Grain

Market, Warangal engaged DCM van bearing No. AP 36 Y 3507 and

loaded the chilli bags in the said van and accompanied the van to

Warangal for unloading purpose. The driver of the van drove it in rash

and negligent manner, lost control, as a result of which, the inmates of

the van including the petitioner received injuries. Based on the

complaint, police, Rayaparthy registered a case in crime No.42 of 2012

against the driver of the DCM van and filed charge sheet against him.

According to the petitioner, he is an agriculturist and earning

Rs.8,000/- per month. Thus, the petitioner claimed compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and

insurer of the DCM van jointly and severally.

4. Respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2 filed

counter disputing the manner in which the accident occurred, age,

avocation, income, health condition of the petitioner/claimant and the

nature of injuries sustained by him. It is further contended that the

driver of the DCM van was not having valid driving license at the time

of accident and that the DCM van was a goods carriage vehicle and its

registered seating capacity is only for three persons i.e., owner/driver,

cleaner and paid driver. The petitioner along with eight other owners

of goods were traveling by the vehicle, which is contrary to the rules

and regulations and thus violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicles

Act and as such the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set-

aside.

5. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioners, PW.1

was examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of

respondent No.2, RW.1 and R.W. 2 were examined and Ex.B1 and B2

were marked.

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the

Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.35,000/- towards compensation

to the claimant along with proportionate costs and interest @ 6 % per

annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

7. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-respondent

No.2 Insurance Company and the learned Counsel for the claimant.

Perused the material available on record.

8. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the

appellant-Insurance Company is that the DCM van being a goods

carriage vehicle and the seating capacity is only for three persons, but

at the time of accident there were eight persons were traveling and due

to over crowd and excessive passengers, the driver could not control

the vehicle as such, the accident occurred and as such the Insurance

Company is not liable to pay compensation.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant

submitted that the tribunal after considering all the aspects has partly

allowed the petition and awarded compensation of Rs.35,000/-, in fact

it is a meager amount and therefore, prayed for just compensation.

10. In view of the rival contentions, this Court has perused the order

of the tribunal, which discloses that the tribunal having framed issue

No.1 as, "whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the DCM Van bearing No. AP.36.Y.3507", after

considering the evidence of PW-1 who is the injured cum eyewitness

coupled with Ex.A1 First Information Report and Ex.A4 charge sheet,

has categorically observed that the accident occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the DCM Van and answered the

issue in favour of the claimant. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere

with the findings of the tribunal on this aspect.

11. In so far as the main ground urged by the learned Standing

Counsel for the Insurance Company that the DCM Van was a goods

carriage vehicle and the seating capacity is only for three persons.

However, at the time of accident, there are nine persons traveling along

with their goods. This Court has perused the First Information Report

and charge sheet, which discloses that there were nine persons traveling

along with their goods i.e., chilli bags at the time of accident and all the

inmates of the DCM Van have sustained injuries.

12. It is pertinent to state that though the accident occurred and nine

persons got injured but the respondent No.1/claimant herein is the

person who is traveling in the DCM van as owner of the goods. Under

these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that he can be

treated as a third party to the policy and the policy was in force as on

the date of accident. Further even as per the evidence of RW-1, owner

of the goods can travel in the cabin of the vehicle. Under these

circumstances, the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability to

pay the compensation to the petitioner and the tribunal has rightly held

that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay

the compensation to the claimant. Hence, interference of this Court is

unwarranted as the tribunal considered all the aspects.

13. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the claimant has

sustained one grievous injury and two simple injuries and he took

treatment in MGM Hospital, Warangal. Considering the injuries

sustained by the claimant, the tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.15,000/- for one grievous injury, Rs.5,000/- for two simple injuries,

Rs.2,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.3,000/- for extra nourishment

and transport charges, which appears to be very less. Therefore,

considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the

treatment taken by him at MGM Hospital, Warangal, the claimant is

entitled for the following amounts:

Sl.No.    Nature of head          Amount awarded by Amount awarded
                                  the tribunal      by this Court

01.       For one grievous injury Rs.15,000/-          Rs.25,000/-

02.       For two simple injuries Rs.5,000/-           Rs.10,000/-

03.       For pain and sufferance Rs.2,000/-           Rs.15,000/-

04.       For medical bills       Rs.10,601/-          Rs.10,601/-

05.       For extra nourishment Rs.3,000/-             Rs.15,000/-
          and transport charges

06.       For loss of earnings    Rs.     --           Rs.10,000/-

          Total                   Rs.35,601/-          Rs.85,601/-
                                  rounded         to
                                  Rs.35,000/-

14.      In the result, the appeal is dismissed.        However, the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced

from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.85,601/-. The enhanced amount will carry

interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 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, the

claimant is entitled to withdraw the compensation awarded to him

without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 09.03.2023 pgp