Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Janjeti Gowramma vs Bobbili Rajesh And 2 Others on 11 October, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3030 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.04.2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- II Additional District Judge, Parvatipuram, passed in M.V.O.P.No.928 of 2004, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim against the respondents 1 to 3 the instant appeal is preferred by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of claim amount.
2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.
3. The claimant filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 28.05.2004.
4. Facts germane to dispose of this appeal may be briefly stated as follows:
2 VGKRJ MACMA 3030 of 2012 On 28.05.2004 the petitioner boarded a Maruthi car bearing No.AP35B 7778, hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle', along with her relatives at Alajangi to go to Vizianagaram, when the car reached near railway station junction, Gajapathinagaram, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against one stationed bus bearing No.AP35T 5477, resulting which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, immediately, after the accident, the petitioner was taken to RHEA Hospital, Visakhapatnam for treatment.
5. The first and second respondents remained exparte. The third respondent filed counter denying the claim of the claimant and contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
i. Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Maruthi car bearing No.AP35B 7778?
3 VGKRJ MACMA 3030 of 2012 ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, from which of the respondents?
iii. To what relief?
7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 and Ex.X1 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent No.3, however, Ex.B1 was marked.
8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.91,000/- to the claimant towards compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal claiming the remaining balance of compensation amount.
9. Heard Sri T.S.Rayalu, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri N.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for third respondent Insurance Company and perused the material on record.
4 VGKRJ MACMA 3030 of 2012
10. Now, the points for consideration are:
1. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference?
2. Whether the claimant/ appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?
11. POINT Nos.1 and 2:-
In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioner relied on her self testimony as PW1. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 attested copy of First Information Report and Ex.A4 attested copy of charge sheet clearly proves that the accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal by giving cogent reasons arrived to a conclusion that the accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. No appeal or cross objections are filed by the respondents against the said finding. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the said finding given by the Tribunal.
12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.91,000/- to the claimant towards total 5 VGKRJ MACMA 3030 of 2012 compensation. The contention of the petitioner is that she was aged about 50 years and she was hale and healthy and discharging her duties as housewife prior to the accident, but now she is not able to attend her duty because of accident and she sustained monetary loss also. Ex.A2 attested copy of wound certificate coupled with the evidence of PW2 to PW5, clearly goes to show that the petitioner sustained injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident in question and she suffered two grievous injuries. The evidence of PW3 to PW5, coupled with the evidence of PW1 and PW2, clearly proves that the petitioner spent an amount of Rs.43,780/- towards medical expenses, therefore, the said amount is awarded towards medical expenses. Since the petitioner sustained two grievous injuries, I find it is a just and necessary to award an amount of Rs.20,000/- for two grievous injuries @ Rs.10,000/- for each grievous injury. Since the petitioner sustained two grievous injuries and she also underwent treatment as inpatient and it is not possible to her to attend her daily normal work, therefore, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards loss of earnings for two months @ Rs.2,500/- for each month. The petitioner also entitled an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards extra 6 VGKRJ MACMA 3030 of 2012 nourishment of food. The case of the claimant is that she sustained disability of 20% because of the two grievous injuries sustained by her in a Motor Vehicles accident. It is not in dispute that, at the time of accident, the petitioner was in between the age group of 50 to 52 and as per Ex.A7, the disability sustained by the petitioner is 20%. As stated supra, the monthly income of the petitioner is Rs.2,500/- i.e., Rs.30,000/- per annum. The multiplier applicable to the age group of the petitioner is 11. On considering the entire evidence on record, I find that it is desirable to award an amount of Rs.66,000/- (30,000 x 20% x 11) towards permanent disability of 20% sustained by the petitioner. Therefore, in total, the claimant is entitled an amount of Rs.1,44,780/- towards compensation. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.91,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,44,780/-. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle is insured with the third respondent Insurance Company and the policy is in force and there are no violations in Ex.B1 policy. Infact, the total liability is fastened on all the respondents by the Tribunal in the year 2006 itself, till so far, no appeal or no cross objections are filed by the respondents against the said finding. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal.
7 VGKRJ MACMA 3030 of 2012
13. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, modifying the order dated 13.04.2006 passed in MVOP No.928/2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Parvatipuram, consequently, the claim amount is enhanced from Rs.91,000/- to Rs.1,44,780/-. The petitioner is entitled the enhanced compensation of Rs.53,780/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.53,780/- with interest as ordered above, before the Tribunal within two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
________________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Dated: 11.10.2023.
sj 8 VGKRJ MACMA 3030 of 2012 71 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.3030 of 2012 11.10.2023 sj