P Sirisha vs Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2814 Tel

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                  M.A.C.M.A.NO.1061 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

Heard learned counsel Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy for the

appellant/claimant and Sri. Harinath Reddy Soma, learned

standing counsel for respondent no.2.

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

(being miner represented by her natural guardian and her father

Sri. P.Ashok) dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge at

Nizamabad (for short, 'MACT') in M.V.O.P.No.175 of 2009, dated

20.10.2014 and thereby seeking enhancement of compensation.

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

4. On 01.04.2007 at about 6.30 pm, the appellant-P.Shirisha

travelling as a pillion rider along with her parents on a motorcycle

and when they reached near Satpur Gate at Yedpally village an

Auto trolley bearing registration No.AP-25-V-1695 dashed the said

motorcycle from opposite direction at high speed in rash and

negligent manner and due to which, the appellant and her father

received sustained injuries and appellant was shifted to LNA,J MACMA No.1061 of 2015

Government Hospital, Nizamabad. The Police, Yedpally P.S.,

registered a case in Crime No.31/2007 under Sections 337 against

the driver of the offending vehicle and filed charge sheet.

5. The claimant, i.e., petitioner No.1 has filed claim petition

against owner of the vehicle and insurance company under Section

166(1)(a) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT claiming

compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest from the date of

the filing of this petition till the date of realization.

6. The appellant/claimant was aged about 10 years as on the

date of accident, hale and healthy and was student. Due to the

accident, she could not attend the school and lost one academic

year and further due to injury, she developed limping and her

marriage prospects became bleak.

7. The respondent No.2-owner of offending vehicle remained ex-

parte. The 1st respondent-Insurance Company filed counter

denying the allegations made in the claim petition and denied that

the driver of the Auto trolley having valid driving license and

further, the insured and insurer of auto are necessary parties and

that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly LNA,J MACMA No.1061 of 2015

exorbitant and excess and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the

claim petition.

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

following issues:

i) Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of auto bearing No.AP-25-V-1695 by its driver?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and against whom?

iii) To what relief ?

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

examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked on behalf of the claimant.

To disprove the claim of the appellant, the 1st respondent-

insurance company did not examine any witness and produce any

document.

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

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

negligent driving of the Auto trolley bearing registration No.AP-25-

V-1695 and awarded compensation of Rs.29,250/- along with

interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of LNA,J MACMA No.1061 of 2015

depositing of amount. 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 compensation.

11. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for

appellant/claimant contended that the MACT awarded very meager

amount of Rs.29,250/- as against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/-

despite sufficient material available on record. He further

contended that MACT did not consider evidence of P.W:1 & P.W:2

and also Exs: A1 to A9 filed on behalf of appellant/claimant. He

further contended that the MACT ought to have considered the age

of the claimant, pain and suffering and also loss of one academic

year and the disability sustained by her due to accident.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance

company would submit that MACT had awarded proper and just

compensation by duly considering the material, evidence placed on

record. He further contended that the appellant failed to adduce

any evidence with regard to alleged loss of academic year, limping

due to injury ect., and therefore, no grounds are made out to

interfere with award passed by the MACT.

LNA,J MACMA No.1061 of 2015

Consideration:

13. The MACT on due consideration of evidence of PW1 who is

father of the claimant and PW2-Doctor, who treated the claimant

and also Exs:A1 to A9, came to conclusion that claimant sustained

one grievous injury and one simple injury and thus, awarded

following amounts:

      Sl.No. Head                            Compensation
                                             awarded
      1        Grievous    injury,    simple Rs.25,000/-
               injury and pain & suffering

      2        Extra nourishment             Rs. 1,500/-

      3        Transport charges             Rs. 500/-

      4        Medical expenses              Rs.2,250/-

               Total                         Rs.29,250/-

14. Perusal of the award passed by the MACT shows that the

Tribunal did not believe and consider the evidence of the Doctor

who said to have treated the claimant, who stated that the

claimant suffered with fracture of Telus neck right side and

claimant was treated conservatively. It is also evident from the

award that no evidence, material was placed by claimant with LNA,J MACMA No.1061 of 2015

regard to grievous injury, shortening and limping of the claimant

and also loss of academic year and further stoppage of studies.

15. Though, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the claimant

sustained one grievous injury, one simple injury, the amount

awarded by the Tribunal is too meagre and therefore, in considered

view of this Court, it is just and proper to enhance the

compensation amount as under:-

      Sl.No. Head                           Compensation awarded

      1       Grievous injury               Rs. 25,000/-

      2       Simple injury                 Rs. 15,000/-

      3       Pain and suffering            Rs. 10,000/-

      4       Extra nourishment             Rs. 5,000/-

      5       Transport charges             Rs. 1,000/-

      6       Medical expenses              Rs. 2,250/-

                                   Total:   Rs.58,250/-



Conclusion:

16. The Appeal is allowed partly enhancing compensation from

Rs.29,250/- to Rs.58,250/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from

the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondent LNA,J MACMA No.1061 of 2015

no.1-Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount

within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of

this order by duly adjusting the amounts, if any, already paid to

the claimant and the permission to withdrawal shall be in terms of

the award passed by the MACT. There shall be no order as to

costs.

17. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.

[[

____________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 29.09.2023 Ktm/kkm LNA,J MACMA No.1061 of 2015

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

M.A.C.M.A.NO.1061 OF 2015

Date: 29 .09.2023

Ktm/kkm