Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 143 (AP)

D. Pedda Narsaiah v. Hari Singh Badavath

2014-01-31

B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

body2014
Judgment The injured-claimant filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Nizambad, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1099 of 2002 dt.004.10.2006, awarding compensation of Rs.5,500/-(Rupees five thousand and five hundred only) as against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only), for enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. Heard M/s V.Tulasi Reddy, the learned counsel for appellant, Sri P.Harinath Gupta, the learned standing counsel for 2nd respondent-The New India Assurance Company Limited and the 1st respondent-owner of crime vehicle, who was served with notice called absent with no representation. Taken as heard the 1st respondent for his absence to decide on merits and perused the record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal. 3. The contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as submissions during course of hearing in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal erred in not considering the medical certificates and not other evidence on record and hence to award just compensation. 4. 1st respondent-owner of the crime vehicle not only before the Tribunal but also herein remained ex parte. 5. The contention of the 2nd respondent-Insurer is that the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion and there is nothing to enhance the compensation, for this court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere, hence to dismiss the appeal saying the said L.Ramulu doctor is known for manufacturing certificates as observed by this Court as well as the Apex Court. 6. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so with what enhancement to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest? 2. To what result? POINT-1: 7. 6. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so with what enhancement to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest? 2. To what result? POINT-1: 7. The facts of the case are that on 28.04.2002 at about 9.00 a.m., the claimant along with his wife and daughter were traveling in the auto bring No.AP25 U 1085 belongs to the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent covered by Ex.B.1 policy, and when they reached outskirts of Argul village, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver at high speed, the vehicle turned turtle and the claimant sustained fractured injuries to both hands, injuries on forehead and legs. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Government hospital, Armoor for treatment and he was treated by the duty Medical Officer and thereafter he took treatment from Dr.L.Ramulu, which occurrence is covered by Ex.A.1 First Information Report and Ex.A.3 charge sheet. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded in all compensation of Rs.5,500/-(Rupees five thousand and five hundred only) with interest at 7.5% p.a. against respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. 8. Coming to the factual matrix of the case, the fact that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle of the 1st respondent-owner insured with the 2nd respondent-Insurance company under Ex.B.1 policy is not in dispute. Even as per the Ex.A.1 FIR given by the claimant, the accident resulted out of auto turned turtle and himself-claimant, his wife and daughter were inmates but he did not even mention what injury he sustained but for saying as if himself, his wife and daughter sustained a weedy or grievous injuries. Even as per the Ex.A.1 FIR given by the claimant, the accident resulted out of auto turned turtle and himself-claimant, his wife and daughter were inmates but he did not even mention what injury he sustained but for saying as if himself, his wife and daughter sustained a weedy or grievous injuries. The Tribunal having rightly concluded by disbelieving so called medical certificates issued by L.Ramulu doctor as if fractured injury sustained by the claimant for nothing in the FIR to believe and from no proof filed regarding they were admitted in the Government hospital, Armoor to say as if doctor was not there to believe and non production of the wound certificate therefrom and the fact there remains for scar on the forehead of the petitioner-claimant shows one of the three simple injuries claimed sustained even as per the claim petition to consider Rs.4,500/-for the three simple injuries and Rs.1,000/- towards medical expenses and in all awarded Rs.5,500/-. In fact for three injuries a minimum of Rs.6,000/- is just compensation and for the medical bills he claimed as incurred and also filed bills for Ex.A.5 dated 03.06.2012 to say Rs.3,500/- is just towards medical expenses and treatment and to award another sum of Rs.1,500/- for transport charges which comes to Rs.11,000/- with interest at 7.5%p.a. Accordingly, Point-1 for consideration is answered. POINT-2: 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the Award of the Tribunal on quantum of compensation by enhancing the same from Rs.5,500/- to Rs.11,000/-(Rupees eleven thousand rupees only) with interest at 7½% p.a. from the date of petition (MVOP) till realization/deposit with notice. Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit said amount with interest within one month from today, failing which the claimant can execute and recover. On such deposit or execution and recovery, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. There is no order as to costs in the appeal.