Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 638 (AP)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Peeka Naga Raju

2010-07-20

VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

body2010
Judgment : 1. This is an appeal by the insurance company against the award of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), West Godavari, Eluru, in O.P.No.43 of2006 dated 14.07.2006. 2. Since a very short point arises for consideration it is not necessary to deal with the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the claim for compensation was allowed by the tribunal below on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant and though the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- was made, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,92,360/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum. 3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company is that even for four simple injuries the tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- each aggregating to Rs.20,000/-, which according to him is impermissible. Learned counsel relies upon the format under which the claim petitions are filed, which specifies that they can be only categorized as grievous injuries and non-grievous injuries. Even under the second schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), the clause (4) dealing with general damages in case of injuries and disabilities shows that under the head of pain and sufferings – grievous injuries and non-grievous injuries - are covered. Learned counsel also cited a decision of the Federal Court of Malaysia in MAHAMAD BIN MAHAMAD SAID v. PERIANAYAGAM 1972 ACJ 205 wherein it is held in para 15 as follows: “15. With respect, we do not think that the learned judge should have taken compensation for each of the two injuries suffered by the plaintiff separately and then just have added them up at the end. The items are not separate heads of compensation. They are only aids at arriving at a fair and reasonable compensation. See Fletcher v. Autocar and Transporters Ltd. [1969 ACJ 99]. There is an element of overlapping when two or more injuries are suffered simultaneously.” Learned counsel, therefore, submits that there can be categorization of injuries into grievous and non-grievous and it is not as if that each simple injury has to be separately compensated and to that extent the award of the tribunal below requires appropriate modification. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that keeping in view the several serious injuries suffered by the claimant, the tribunal below had awarded just compensation, which does not deserve any modification. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that keeping in view the several serious injuries suffered by the claimant, the tribunal below had awarded just compensation, which does not deserve any modification. To the extent of simple injuries, however, the learned counsel states that the fact that the claimant suffered four non-grievous injuries is not in dispute and as such, the claimant had to be compensated for the same. 5. Considering the rival contentions, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that there can be only one head for non-grievous injuries and it is not as if that each injury has to be separately quantified and compensation be awarded in that respect. The tribunal below has awarded Rs.5,000/- for each of the non-grievous injuries aggregating to Rs.20,000/-, which is clearly impermissible and having awarded adequate and just compensation for grievous injuries and on other heads, to the extent of simple injuries aggregate sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the tribunal deserves a modification, instead there shall be compensation of Rs.5,000/- in aggregate towards non-grievous injuries. The impugned order shall stand modified by reducing the compensation from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.5,000/- so far as four simple injuries (nongrievous injuries) are concerned and the rest of the tribunal’s award does not deserve any interference. However, the rate of interest as granted by the tribunal at 7.5% stands reduced to 6% per annum as per the latest decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION (2009) 6 SCC 121. The civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part modifying the impugned award. There shall be no order as to costs.