Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs R. Prabhakar Naidu And Another on 23 December, 2019
Author: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
Bench: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1592 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the award passed by the Chairman, MACT cum III Additional District Judge, Tirupati in MV OP No.494 of 2007 dated 25.02.2010 granting compensation of Rs.4,56,180/- with interest at 6% p.a., the 2nd respondent-insurer therein, filed the present appeal.
2. The appellant herein is the 2nd respondent-insurer, the 1st respondent is the claimant and the 2nd respondent is the owner of the auto AP 27 U 5635. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal in the original petition.
3. The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, that took place on 11.11.2006 at about 9.30 p.m. Case of the claimant is that, on the date of accident, he along with his friend were going by foot from Bairagipatteda to Lakshmipuram, Tirupati and when they reached APSEB Sub-Station, an auto bearing No.AP 27 U 5635 of the 1st respondent, insured with the 2nd respondent, came from Tiruchanur side, in a rash and negligent way and dashed against the claimant from behind; as a result, claimant fell on the road and sustained fractures over the head, legs and injuries over eye and ears; after the accident, he was shifted to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati and later he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Chennai for better treatment, where he spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards medicines, treatment etc.; a case in Cr.No.49/2007 was registered against driver of the auto by the S.H.O., Traffic PS, Tirupati; at the time 2 KVL, J MA CMA No.1592 of 2010 of the accident, the injured was aged about 33 years and earning Rs.4000/- per month as a cashier in Nandini Wine Shop, Tirupati and he was also cultivating three acres of land and earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum and on account of injuries, he became disabled; as the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto and as the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the auto, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
4. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent/ insurer filed written statement before the Tribunal, denying the allegations of the claim petition, contending that due to the negligence of the claimant, the accident occurred and that the amount claimed is excessive.
5. Basing on the said pleadings, the Tribunal has framed four issues. During enquiry, on behalf of claimant, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral evidence was adduced, but Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked.
6. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence of PW.1 who is the injured cum eye witness to the accident, coupled with the contents of Exs.A.1-FIR and A.2-charge sheet, recorded a finding on issue No.1 that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent; on issue No.2, the Tribunal held that the 1st respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurer and the policy was in existence as on the date of accident; on Issue Nos.3 and 4, the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,56,180/- with interest at 6% per annum from the 3 KVL, J MA CMA No.1592 of 2010 date of petition, till the date of realization and directed the respondents to pay the same.
7. Heard Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. Perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the amounts awarded on various grounds except the amount of Rs.1,35,000/- i.e. awarded at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per injury towards pain and suffering. He further contended that the petitioner received nine injuries, which are all abrasions and lacerations and granting of Rs.15,000/- per injury towards pain and suffering is highly excessive and exorbitant and hence, he sought to reduce the said amount.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed with regard to the accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto and its coverage of policy with the 2nd respondent as on the date of accident. He also has not disputed the amount of Rs.2,30,400/- towards loss of income; Rs.25,000/- towards permanent disability and Rs.65,780/- towards medicines and treatment. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said amounts.
10. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to granting of Rs.1,35,000/- towards pain and suffering at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per injury. A perusal of the wound certificate, discharge summary and permanent disability certificates Exs.A.3, 4 and A.6, the petitioner sustained the following injuries.
1. Bil black eye +
2. Abrasion of 4 x 7 cm over the right shoulder;
3. Laceration of 1 x ½ cm over the left ear;
4. Abrasion of 3x3 cm over the left cheek;
5. Abrasion of 7x3 cm over the medial aspect;
6. Multiple abrasions over the dorsal aspect of right hand; 4
KVL, J MA CMA No.1592 of 2010
7. Multiple abrasions over the left arm and hand;
8. Multiple abrasions over the right foot;
9. Bleeding from the throat.
As per the evidence of PW.5-doctor, the injuries sustained by the claimant are grievous in nature and was referred to a Neuro Surgeon. A perusal of the wound certificate, there are only abrasions and lacerations on various places on the body of the petitioner. Even as per the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- per grievous injury. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioner received nine injuries, which are lacerations and abrasions, I award a sum of Rs.45,000/- i.e., at the rate of Rs.5000/- per injury (9 injuries) towards pain and suffering. As already stated, learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the amounts awarded under the other heads, they are confirmed. In all, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,66,180/- (Rs.2,30,400/- towards loss of income; Rs.25,000/- towards permanent disability; Rs.45,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.65,780/- towards medicines and treatment), with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization.
11. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent stated above. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J Date: 23.12.2019 BSS 5 KVL, J MA CMA No.1592 of 2010 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI M.A.C.M.A.No.1592 of 2010 51 Date: 23.12.2019 BSS