Telangana High Court

Shaik Ismail vs Ramini Srinivas And Another on 12 March, 2025

             HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                       M.A.C.M.A.No.3807 OF 2009

JUDGMENT:

1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Khammam (for

short, the Tribunal), in M.V.O.P.No.1285 of 2006, dated

16.07.2008, the petitioner/injured in the said M.V.O.P preferred

the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

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

referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/injured filed

a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained

by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.01.2006. It

is stated by the petitioner that on 16.01.2006, when the petitioner

was driving Lorry No.AP-16-TV-0200 from Jaggaiahpeta to

Hyderabad with Ramco Cement load and at about 9.00 hours, he

stopped the said Lorry in order to bring papers to their office, at

that time, the driver of Goods Auto bearing No.AP-29-T-7696 came

in the wrong route in a rash and negligent manner at high speed

and dashed against the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner

sustained grievous as well as simple injuries. Immediately, he was

MGP,J

shifted to Orthopedic Hospital, Vanasthalipuram and treated as

inpatient for one day and later shifted to Khammam and admitted

in Dr.P.N.V.S.V.Prasad Hospital as inpatient where the Doctors

conducted operations and inserted steel rods into his left leg and

he spent Rs.25,000/- towards medical and other expenses.

4. It is stated by the petitioner that prior to accident, he was

hale and healthy and is a lorry driver by profession and used to

earn Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.30/- per day as Batta. Due to

the said accident, he is unable to attend to his normal duties, lost

income during the period of treatment and also lost earning

capacity. Therefore, filed claim petition seeking compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/-towards general and special damages.

5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1, being the owner of

crime Auto bearing No.AP-29-T-7696, remained ex-parte.

6. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter

denying the averments made in the claim petition including,

manner of accident, age, health condition of the petitioner,

treatment undergone by the petitioner and contended that the

accident occurred only due to negligence on part of the petitioner

and contended that the 1st respondent has not reported about the

alleged accident to 2nd respondent/Insurance Company and

MGP,J

violated the policy conditions. As such, the Insurance Company is

not liable to pay compensation and that the claim of compensation

is excess and exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the claim

against it.

7. Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned

Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial:-

i. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accident vehicle i.e., Auto baring No.AP-29-T-7696 by its driver?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

iii. To what relief?

8. During the course of trial, the petitioner/injured examined

himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 on his behalf. On

behalf of respondent No.2/Insurance Company, RWs1 and 2 were

examined and Exs.B1 & B2 were marked.

9. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the

claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.21,818/- along with

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

realization payable by respondent No.1 alone, who is the owner of

Auto bearing No.AP-29-T-7696. Having not satisfied with the

MGP,J

compensation awarded, the petitioner/injured preferred the

present Appeal seeking enhancement of the same.

10. Heard arguments submitted by Sri Pulla Rao Yellanki,

learned counsel for the appellant/injured and Sri N.S.Bhaskara

Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance

Company. Perused the record.

11. The contentions of the learned counsel for Appellant/injured

as stated in the grounds of Appeal are that though the petitioner

sustained grievous and simple injuries and had undergone

treatment for 3 months, but the learned Tribunal awarded very

meager amount towards the said injuries and hence prayed to

allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

No.2/Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal had

rightly dismissed the liability against the Insurance Company as

the driver of the crime Auto do not possess valid driving license to

drive commercial goods carrying vehicle and also awarded

reasonable compensation for which interfere of this Court is

unwarranted.

13. Now the point that emerges for determination is,

MGP,J

Whether the appellant/injured is entitled for enhancement of compensation?

POINT:-

14. Since there is no dispute about the manner of accident and

liability of the respondents and since the findings arrived at by the

Court below on those aspects were not challenged, there is no

necessity to once again decide the above said aspects. The only

point that has to be considered in the present Appeal is with regard

to quantum of compensation.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the

appellant sustained grievous and simple injuries and had

undergone treatment for 3 months, but the learned Tribunal

awarded very meager amount towards compensation.

16. A perusal of quantum of compensation in the impugned

judgment shows that the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.15,000/- towards grievous injury and Rs.5,000/- towards

simple injuries.

17. As per injury certificate under Ex.A3 issued by Sri Ramadevi

Orthopedic Hospital, the petitioner sustained 1 grievous injury and

1 simple injury. Hence, this Court, considering the said grievous

injury, is inclined to interfere with the finding of the learned

Tribunal and hereby enhances the amount awarded towards

MGP,J

grievous injury from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. Further, this

Court, considering the pain and suffering undergone by the

petitioner due to the said injuries, is inclined to award a sum of

Rs.10,000/- under the Head of Pain and suffering, an amount of

Rs.5,000/- each towards transport and extra nourishment. Hence,

the appellant/injured is entitled for a total compensation as

calculated under:-

S.No. Details of Head Amount awarded by Amount Tribunal awarded by this Court

1. 1 Grievous injury Rs.15,000/- Rs.25,000/-

2. 1 Simple injury Rs.5,000/- -

3. Medical expenses Rs.1,818/- -

4. Pain and suffering - Rs.10,000/-

5. Transport - Rs.5,000/-

6. Extra nourishment - Rs.5,000/-

7. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.21,818/- Rs.51,818/-

18. So far as liability is concerned, the learned Tribunal,

considering the evidence of RWs 1 & 2, who deposed in their

evidence that as per driving license extract under Ex.B2, the driver

of Auto Rickshaw was authorized to drive non-transport Auto-

rickshaw and not a commercial goods vehicle, exempted Insurance

Company from its liability to pay compensation.

MGP,J

19. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between S.Iyyapan Vs. M/s.

United India Insurance Co.Ld.& Anr 1 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex

Court at Para 18 of the judgment held as under:-

"18. ... ... ... Hence, in our considered opinion, the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that although the driver was holding a license to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving license. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of any condition of the insurance policy."

20. From the above, it is clear that the Insurance Company

cannot disown its liability merely on the ground that the driver of

crime Auto do not possess driving licence to drive a commercial

vehicle. Hence, this Court, by relying upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court (cited supra) deems fit and proper to include

the Insurance Company in making liable to pay the compensation

amount along with respondent No.1 i.e., owner of Auto bearing

No.AP-29-T-7696.

1 AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 2262

MGP,J

21. In the result, the Appeal is partly-allowed by enhancing the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.21,818/-