Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 206 (AP)

Angadala Chalapathy v. P. Adinarayana

2008-03-14

P.S.NARAYANA

body2008
JUDGMENT:- Heard Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel representing the appellant- claimant and Smt.A.Malathi, learned Standing Counsel representing 2nd respondent. 2. Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel representing the appellant-claimant would maintain that the Doctor was examined as PW.2 and the injuries were proved and even if injuries 1 and 2 to be taken as simple in nature, the amount awarded is not reasonable. Even otherwise in the case of injury No.3, though grievous in nature, reasonable amount had not been awarded. The learned counsel also would maintain that apart from this aspect of the matter, taking into consideration the nature of disability and the nature of the injuries, reasonable amounts should have been awarded for pain and suffering and also loss of earnings. Hence, in any view of the matter the compensation awarded is not just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel also would submit that the insurance company was not made liable on the ground of infraction of RTA permit and even on that ground negativing the relief as against the insurance company cannot be sustained. 3. Smt. A. Malathi, learned Standing Counsel representing the 2nd respondent had placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. CHALLA BHARATHAMMA AND OTHERS and would maintain that plying of a vehicle without permit is an infraction and insurer need not indemnify the award of compensation, but the counsel in all fairness would submit that the Apex Court observed that in view of the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. The counsel also would further submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case especially in the light of the evidence of PW.2, the amount awarded to be taken as just and reasonable. 4. In the light of the submissions made by the counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this CMA: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Cuddapah can be said to be just, proper and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. 4. In the light of the submissions made by the counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this CMA: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Cuddapah can be said to be just, proper and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Whether Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Cuddapah is justified in not fastening any liability whatsoever as against the United India Insurance Company in the facts and circumstances of the case? 3. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to? POINTS 1 and 2: 5. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as claimant and respondents as shown in MVOP No.665 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Cuddapah, hereinafter in short referred to as Tribunal for the purpose of convenience. 6. The claimant filed the said MVOP claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with costs and 18% interest per annum. It was averred by the claimant that on 20.11.1999 the petitioner to go to Rayachoti was waiting for a bus at his village. At that time, the vehicle bearing No.AP-03-0849 belongs to 1st respondent came from Galiveedu side. The petitioner and others boarded the bus. The driver of the bus has driven the bus in rash and negligent manner with high speed. When the bus reached near Boyapalli turning point, the driver of the bus could not control the bus, as a result, the bus turned turtle to the side of the road. The petitioner sustained injuries all over his body and his right ankle was fractured. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Rayachoti. He gave police report. From there he was shifted to Government Headquarters Hospital, Cuddapah. He was treated there as inpatient for about 15 days and he spent Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Due to the fracture to his right ankle, he is not able even to walk freely and unable to discharge his normal duties. 7. Respondent No.1 was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed written statement denying the version of the claimant. It is averred that the bus bearing No.AP-03-U-0849 was insured with 2nd respondent under policy No.050904/31/940/16/0182/99. Due to the fracture to his right ankle, he is not able even to walk freely and unable to discharge his normal duties. 7. Respondent No.1 was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed written statement denying the version of the claimant. It is averred that the bus bearing No.AP-03-U-0849 was insured with 2nd respondent under policy No.050904/31/940/16/0182/99. It is stated that the insurance is valid from 22.8.1999 to 21.8.2000, subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It is also averred that the petitioner is not entitled to claim compensation under the head 'permanent disability and loss of earning power' as the petitioner is attending to his normal duties after taking treatment to the injuries. It is further stated that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and he is not entitled to claim costs and interest. 8. On the strength of these pleadings, the following issues were settled: 1. Whether the petitioner received injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 20.11.1999 due to rash and negligent driving of private bus bearing No.AP03-U-0849 belonging to 1st respondent? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 9. On behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the contesting respondents, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence of PW.1 and also Exs.A1 and A3, answered issue No.1 relating to the factum of accident in favour of the claimant. While answering issue No.2, the Tribunal appreciated the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and RW.1 and also had taken into consideration Exs.A1 to A6 and Exs.B1 and B2 and came to the conclusion that as per Ex.B2 permit the bus driver had no permit to ply the bus via Boyapalli and he had violated the conditions of Ex.B1 policy and hence the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and the 1st respondent owner alone is liable to pay the compensation and accordingly decided the issue. However, the Tribunal fixed the quantum of compensation of Rs.5,000/- each to injuries 1 and 2 holding them as simple and holding injury No.3 as grievous, fixed compensation of Rs.20,000/- and in total granted a compensation of Rs.30,000/- with 9% interest. However, the Tribunal fixed the quantum of compensation of Rs.5,000/- each to injuries 1 and 2 holding them as simple and holding injury No.3 as grievous, fixed compensation of Rs.20,000/- and in total granted a compensation of Rs.30,000/- with 9% interest. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal had been filed. 10. As far as non-fastening of any liability whatsoever as against the insurance company, the learned Standing Counsel representing the insurance company placed before this Court the decision in National Insurance Company Limited (1 supra), wherein while interpreting Section 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, the Apex Court observed that plying of a vehicle without a permit is an infraction; insurer need not indemnify the award of compensation, but, however, in view of the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. Further it was held that the Executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law as to the manner in which the owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the Executing Court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle i.e., the insured. In the light of the view expressed by the Apex Court, the appellant-claimant is entitled to recover the amount to be granted by this Court by way of compensation from the insurance company. 11. As far as the appreciation of evidence of PW.2 is concerned, PW.2 deposed about the nature of injuries, injury Nos.1 and 2 as simple and injury No.3 as grievous. It is needless to say that the injuries had been duly proved by examination of PW.2. Apart from this evidence, the evidence of PW.1 and RW.1 also had been appreciated. Ex.A4 is the disability certificate; Ex.A5 is the x-ray; Ex.A6 is the medical receipt; Ex.B1 is the copy of insurance policy and Ex.B2 is the copy of permit. There is no serious controversy relating to the other aspects except the infraction of the condition of the permit and on the strength of which a finding had been recorded by the Tribunal. There is no serious controversy relating to the other aspects except the infraction of the condition of the permit and on the strength of which a finding had been recorded by the Tribunal. Ex.A1, the certified copy of FIR, Ex.A2, certified copy of wound certificate and Ex.A3 certified copy of charge sheet also had been taken into consideration. In the light of the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the nature of injuries especially in the light of evidence of Doctor-PW.2 and also Exs.A2, A4 to A6, this Court is of the considered opinion that for injury No.1 Rs.5,000/- to be granted and for injury No.2 Rs.5,000/- to be granted and inasmuch as the said sums had already been granted by the Tribunal, the said sums are hereby confirmed. 12. As far as injury No.3 is concerned, the same being grievous, awarding of compensation of Rs.20,000/- being not reasonable, the same is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. Apart from this aspect of the matter, nothing had been granted either for pain and suffering or loss of earnings, though 35% disability had been recorded. Under the said heads, Rs.5,000/- each to be granted i.e., in total Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). Thus, the total compensation to be awarded would come to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). Thus, the Award is modified, however reducing the interest from 9% to 7.5%. POINT NO.3: 13. Accordingly the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed as against both the respondents subject to the observations made by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited (1 supra). There shall be no order as to costs.