Nittu Ramesh vs M/S Thirumala Agri Tech. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2809 Tel

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                  M.A.C.M.A.NO.103 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

Heard learned counsel Sri B.Venkat Reddy for the

appellant/claimant and Sri. Narsaiah Golla, learned standing

counsel for respondent no.2-insurance company.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/ claimant

dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at

Hyderabad (for short, 'MACT') in M.V.O.P.No.1232 of 2011, dated

03.08.2013 and thereby seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.

4. On 26.03.2011 at about 8.45 am, the appellant/claimant

along with respondent No.3/driver of the Car bearing registration

No.AP-09-C-2326 was proceeding from Dandumailaram towards

his poultry farm side and when they reached the outskirts of

Dandumailaram near Kamrolla Bavi, the driver of the Car drove

the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and could not control the

vehicle and thus, car turned turtle and fell down into a

Kamaratolla dry agricultural well, due to which, the appellant LNA,J MACMA No.103 of 2015

sustained injuries and he was shifted to Indus hospital at

Kothapet, Hyderabad. The Police, Ibrahimpatnam P.S., registered a

case in Crime No.110 of 2011 under Section 338 IPC against the

driver of the offending vehicle and filed charge sheet.

5. The claimant, i.e., appellant has filed claim petition against

owner, driver of the offending vehicle and insurance company

under Section 166 of M.V.Act, 1989 and the Rules made there

under before the MACT claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

6. The appellant was aged about 28 years as on the date of

accident, hale and healthy and was working as labour under self-

employment scheme and was earning income of Rs.4,500/- per

month.

7. The respondent No.3 remained ex parte. The respondent

No.1-owner of offending vehicle and respondent No.2-insurance

company filed counter denying the allegations made in the claim

petition and further contended that the insured and insurer of

offending vehicle are necessary parties and that the compensation

claimed by the appellant is highly exorbitant and excess and

therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

LNA,J MACMA No.103 of 2015

8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the MACT framed the

following issues:

i) Whether the accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e.Maruthi Car bearing No.AP-09-C-2326?

ii) Whether the offending vehicle driver was having effective driving license at the time of alleged accident.?

iii) Whether the offending vehicle was having proper records at the time of the alleged accidents?

iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation and if so, from whom and if so to what extent ?

v) To what relief ?

9. In order to substantiate the case, P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined

on behalf of the claimant and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked. To

disprove the claim of the appellant, the respondents did not

examine any witness, however, insurance policy was marked as

Ex.B1.

10. The MACT, after considering the evidence placed on record,

came to a conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and

negligent driving of the Car bearing registration No.AP-09-C-2326

and awarded compensation of Rs.1,64,500/- along with interest @ LNA,J MACMA No.103 of 2015

7.5% per annum from the date of deposit or realization whichever

is earlier. The owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurance

company i.e., respondent Nos.1 & 2 were held to be jointly and

severally liable to pay the said compensation.

11. During the course of hearing of appeal, the learned counsel

for appellant submitted that the MACT ought to have granted the

full amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as just and proper compensation

and ought to have appreciated that appellant has sustained (i)

fractures of 2, 3, 4 and 5 left side ribs and restriction of

movements of left shoulder and (ii) laceration of occipital region.

He submitted that MACT ought to have granted compensation of

Rs.27,000/- towards loss of earnings during treatment i.e., for

three months. He further submitted that MACT ought to have

granted Rs.1,42,000/- for continuing permanent disability and

loss of pleasures and amenities of life and loss of future loss

earnings.

12. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for insurance

company submitted that MACT on appreciation of evidence and

material on record, rightly awarded the compensation and there is LNA,J MACMA No.103 of 2015

no need to interfere with the award passed by the MACT and

prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

13. With regard to the injuries, the MACT came to conclusion

that appellant sustained the following injuries:

i) laceration at left temporal region

ii) Laceration above the nose forehead

iii) Laceration at occipital region

iv) Fractures 2, 3, 4, 5 left ribs.

14. On evaluation of the evidence, P.W.1, who is the

appellant/claimant and P.W.2, who is the Doctor and also the

documents placed before the MACT, the MACT awarded the

following amounts under various heads:

i) Loss of earnings:

The MACT considered the monthly earnings of appellant at

Rs.4,500/- and observed that appellant required three months bed

rest and therefore, awarded an amount of Rs.13,500/- (Rs.4500/-

x 3) towards loss of earnings.

LNA,J MACMA No.103 of 2015

ii) Expenditure towards treatment:

The MACT has considered Ex.A6-discharge bill, Exs.A7 to

A13, which are inpatient bills of Indus hospitals, and also

Ex.A14-buch of medical bills, aggregating Rs.21,378/- and

awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/-, which also includes extra

nourishment etc.

iii) Pain and suffering:

The MACT considering the nature of injuries had awarded a

sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering.

iv) The MACT having considered that the appellant/claimant

had sustained four fracture injuries and thus, awarded a sum of

Rs.10,000/- to each fracture, totaling to Rs.40,000/-.

15. In considered view of this Court, the amount awarded by

MACT is too meager and therefore, considering the nature of

injuries sustained by the appellant, therefore, the Appellant is

entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- to each fracture, aggregating to

Rs.80,000/-.

16. Except the above enhancement, all other grounds raised by

the appellant are rejected.

LNA,J MACMA No.103 of 2015

17. Therefore, the Appeal is partly allowed enhancing

compensation of Rs.1,64,500/- to Rs.2,04,000/- with interest @

7.5% per annum from the date of deposit till date of realization.

The respondent no.2-Insurance Company herein shall deposit the

above compensation amount within a period of eight (8) weeks

from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the

appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation

amount.

18. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.

[[

____________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 29.09.2023 Ktm/kkm LNA,J MACMA No.103 of 2015

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

M.A.C.M.A.NO.103 OF 2015

Date: 29.09.2023

Ktm/kkm