HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3570 OF 2004 JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the compensation amount of Rs. 4,500/- awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal –cum- IV Additional District Judge (FTC) Anantapur, vide order dated 5.8.2004 in O.P.No. 474 of 2000 on his file, as against the claim laid for grant of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained in the road accident, the present appeal is preferred seeking for enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Cleaner in a private bus plying between Kadiri and Chinthamani and he was aged about 35 years and getting salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month and daily batta of Rs. 25/-. On 31.11.1996, when the bus was proceeding to Chinthamani and stopped near Sanjeevapalli bus stop for loading the passengers, a blue Ambassador Car bearing No. KA 37 M 3456 coming from Tanakal side driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the petitioner due to which, he sustained fracture to his right leg and other injuries to his head and face. He was immediately taken to Madanapalli and he was admitted in the Hospital. The Police, Tanakal Police Station, also registered a case in Crime No. 108/96 under Section 338 IPC. The petitioner claimed that he suffered permanent disability and the first respondent being owner of the Car and the second respondent being its insurer both are jointly and severally liable for compensation.
4. The first respondent has not filed any counter in spite of giving sufficient opportunity and he was set exparte. The second respondent-Insurance Company contested the claim by filing counter denying the material allegations levelled against the petitioner and also claiming that the compensation sought by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and that the petitioner has not suffered any permanent disability, sought for dismissal of the claim.
5. The Tribunal basing on the above pleadings framed three issues about the responsibility for the accident and examined the claimant as PW.1 and marked (13) documents as Exs.A-1 to A-13 and Ex. R1, copy of the insurance policy, as to the entitlement of the claimant for the compensation claimed.
6. The Tribunal, on issue No.1, based on the evidence of PW-1 supported by Exs. P1 and P3, which are the certified copies of FIR and Charge Sheet, holding that only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, accident had occurred, held the issue in favour of the claimant.
7. On issue No.2, the Tribunal observing that Ex. P- 2 does not contain the X-ray number and the petitioner also not submitted X-ray and did not examine the doctor despite the fact that the medical officer recording his opinion that the injuries were grievous in nature, still, treated them as simple injuries and awarded Rs. 1,500/- per injury making a total sum of Rs. 4,500/- as compensation with interest at 6% per annum.
8. Challenging the said order, the claimant approached this Court seeking enhancement contending that the Tribunal was not right in refusing Ex. P-2 despite the Assistant Medical Officer recording that there was grievous injury and the Tribunal ought to have kept in view, that the Motor Vehicles Act, is a beneficial legislation and, therefore, sought for grant of balance amount. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decisions reported in Velluri Padmavathi v. Manem Ravindranath
[1]
Benerjee and others and D. Swarnalatha and others
[2]
v. I.S. Rasool Saheb and others . He also submits that even Ex. P-2 is clear enough to show that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature, still, the tribunal based on strict evidentiary rule arrived at a conclusion to treat all the three injuries described in Ex. P-2 are simple and thereby awarded Rs. 4,500/-, which is very meagre and the approach of the Tribunal is wrong. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the order of the Tribunal pointing out the observations made by the Tribunal as regards non- examination of doctor.
9. Heard Sri K. Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the claimant and Sri P. Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for respondent No.2 – insurance company.
10. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case?
11. Ex. P-2 is the certified copy of the medical certificate. It is no doubt true that in Ex. P-2, the medical officer has not mentioned the number of X-ray report. The medical officer, being Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Madanapalli, who has mentioned the injuries. So far as the first injury is concerned it is described as fracture of right leg and second and third injuries are concerned, they are only abrasions with ignorable measurements and dimensions. Therefore, to the extent of first injury, it has to be construed as grievous injury and the Tribunal, somehow, deviated in appreciating the fact that it is an authentic document issued by a competent authority and though, observed that the injury suffered by the claimant as mentioned in Ex.P2 is grievous still, awarded only Rs. 4,500/- as compensation. Therefore, keeping in view, the nature of the first injury as described in Ex. P-2 being a fracture and deformity of the right leg, the claimant is certainly, entitled to Rs. 15,000/- towards injury, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering for the reason that he has been inpatient for 14 days. The claimant is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs. 3,000/- towards transport besides Rs. 3,000/- each for two simple injuries described in Ex. P-2. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a total sum of Rs. 39,000/- as against Rs. 4,500/-. The Tribunal granted simple interest on Rs. 4,500/- at 6% per annum by keeping the default condition that the petitioner is entitled to interest at 12% in case the amount was not deposited within six weeks from the date of the order impugned. However, the same requires modification. The rate of interest is awarded at 9% on Rs. 4,500/- and on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 34,500/-, interest is awarded at 7.5%, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajesh and others v.
[3]
Rajbir Singh and others .
12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part modifying the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, by enhancing the compensation as stated supra. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand disposed of.
A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J DATE: 25.4.2014. KA
[1] 1994 (2) ALT 424
[2] 1997 (1) ALD 681
[3] 2013 ACJ 1403