Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 235 (AP)

K. Perumal v. Md Althaf

2025-02-07

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : V R K Krupa Sagar, J. Questioning the inadequacy of compensation, the injured claimant preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 impugning the award dated 31.07.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.177 of 2008. 2. Heard arguments of Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, the learned counsel for appellant and Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Sri Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel representing Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, the learned counsel for respondent No.4-United India Insurance Company Limited. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 did not choose to appear and contest. 3. The following facts are required to be noticed: On 02.09.2001 Tata Sumo bearing registration No.AP-03-D-4277 was travelling on Kadapa-Rayachoty road and when it reached near Masapet entrance at about 3:30 A.M. the driver of it failed to notice a stationed lorry bearing registration No.TN-23- 4577 on the road and by his rash or negligent driving dashed on the back of the lorry. In that automobile accident Sri K.Perumal sustained injuries and his wife Smt. Amaravathi died. On the death of Smt. Amaravathi her husband and son filed M.V.O.P.No.133 of 2002 and after due contest the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor allowed the claim and granted compensation of Rs.3,64,500/-. Sri K.Perumal for the injuries he sustained in the subject matter accident filed M.V.O.P.No.177 of 2008 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. The owner of the Tata Sumo was made as respondent No.1 and the insurer of the vehicle/the Oriental Insurance Company Limited was made as respondent No.2. The owner of the stationed lorry was made as respondent No.3 and the insurer of the stationed lorry/United India Insurance Company Limited was made as respondent No.4. Before the Claims Tribunal respondent Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.4 filed their counters while respondent No.3 did not choose to appear and contest. 4. On these rival pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1 st respondent’s TATA Sumo bearing No.AP-03-D-4277? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation for the injuries sustained by him, if so, to what amount and from whom? On these rival pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1 st respondent’s TATA Sumo bearing No.AP-03-D-4277? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation for the injuries sustained by him, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3) Whether the OP is maintainable in view of earlier OP No.133/2002 as contended by 2 nd respondent? 4) To what relief? 5. During trial, the injured claimant testified as PW.1, an eye witness to the accident testified as PW.2 and the doctor who treated and conducted surgeries for the claimant testified as PW.3 and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. 6. Respondent No.2-the Oriental Insurance Company Limited exhibited Ex.B.1 which was a copy of the insurance policy and did not produce any other oral evidence. By the time of subject matter accident, the insurance policy issued by respondent No.2 in Ex.B.1 was in force. 7. After hearing the arguments on both sides and after considering the rival contentions, the learned Claims Tribunal concluded that the subject matter accident was out of rashness or negligence on part of driver of Tata Sumo and accordingly it fastened liability on respondent Nos.1 and 2. It found no fault on part of stationed lorry and therefore, respondent Nos.3 and 4 were absolved of any liability. 8. As against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/- the learned Claims Tribunal granted Rs.2,16,235/- under the following heads: Compensation for injuries, pain and suffering Rs. 35,000-00 Compensation for discomfort and inconvenience Rs. 30,000-00 Compensation for loss of past earnings Rs. 10,000-00 Medical expenses Rs. 1,26,235-00 Incidental charges Rs. 10,000-00 Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000-00 Total: Rs. 2,16,235-00 9. Learned Claims Tribunal passed the award in the following terms: “In the result, the MVOP is partly allowed with proportionate costs, awarding total compensation of Rs.2,16,235-00 (Rs.Two Lakhs Sixteen thousand Two hundred and Thirty-five only) as against the claim for Rs.6,00,000-00, with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit/realization against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the awarded compensation within two months from the date of this award with accrued interest and proportionate costs, failing which, the petitioner is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the expiry of the said period of two months. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,16,235-00 (Rs. One Lakh Sixteen thousand Two hundred and Thirty-five only) with accrued interest and costs allowed and the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000-00 (Rs.One Lakh only) shall be deposited by way of Fixed Deposit Receipt in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years and on maturity entitled to receive the same along with accrued interest. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500-00 (Rupees Five Hundred Only). Rest of the MVOP claim, including against the respondents 3 and 4, is dismissed, but without costs.” 10. Questioning the inadequacy of compensation, the injured claimant preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 11. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 did not choose to appear and context. Respondent No.4-the United India Insurance Company Limited is made only a formal party since the award did not fasten any liability on it and the appellant did not raise any question in that regard. Therefore, the essential contest is between the appellant and respondent No.2-the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 12. The point that falls for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is inadequate and not just thereby requiring interference?” POINT: 13. In the present appeal, there are no questions raised about subsistence or validity of insurance policy. There are also no questions raised about any violations of the insurance policy conditions. 14. The appellant/claimant was aged 55 years by the time of the subject matter accident. He was essentially an LIC agent. He claimed various amounts of money towards his earnings. However, the fact remains that he did not produce any books of accounts or tax returns or any other material to substantiate his claim of earnings. 15. In the accident, as one would notice from the evidence of PW.1, PW.3/the doctor and Ex.A.3-wound certificate and Ex.A.4-medical bills and discharge summary and Ex.A.7-surgery reports, the appellant/claimant suffered the following injuries: 1. Contusion on middle of left thigh 15 x 10 cm, tenderness present; 2. 15. In the accident, as one would notice from the evidence of PW.1, PW.3/the doctor and Ex.A.3-wound certificate and Ex.A.4-medical bills and discharge summary and Ex.A.7-surgery reports, the appellant/claimant suffered the following injuries: 1. Contusion on middle of left thigh 15 x 10 cm, tenderness present; 2. Contusion on left forehead 4 x 3 cm tenderness present; 3. Lacerated injury on back of left elbow 5 x 2 cm x skin deep; 4. The X-ray report of his left thigh disclosed fracture shaft (left) femur which was grievous in nature. 16. The oral evidence disclosed, initially the appellant/claimant was admitted in Government Hospital, Rayachoty and from there he was shifted to SVRR Government Hospital, Tirupati where he was treated as an in-patient for three days and thereafter he was shifted to Madras Bone and Joint Clinic, Anna Nagar, Chennai. It was there in the last-mentioned hospital he was in-patient in two spells between 05.09.2001 and 19.09.2001 and thereafter from 25.04.2002 to 14.05.2002. 17. Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, the learned counsel for appellant contends that in paragraph Nos.20 and 21 of the impugned award the learned Claims Tribunal noted the various treatments and surgeries the appellant/claimant had undergone, but granted medical expenses only for the treatment obtained in the last mentioned hospital at Chennai. In other words, the submission is that the claimant had earlier undergone treatment in two other hospitals, and nothing was granted towards the same. Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Oriental Insurance Company contends that the appellant/claimant failed to produce any documents indicating his treatment in the other hospitals and therefore, the impugned award cannot be questioned in this regard. 18. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record, it has to be recorded that the oral evidence of PW.1/claimant that he was treated in two other hospitals remained unchallenged. In fact, at paragraph No.21 of the impugned award, the learned Claims Tribunal recorded a positive finding about treatment that was taken by the claimant in other two hospitals. In such circumstances for treatment the claimant had obtained from the time of accident on 02.09.2001 till he was admitted in the hospital at Chennai on 05.09.2001 the claimant must have spent some amount of money. In such circumstances for treatment the claimant had obtained from the time of accident on 02.09.2001 till he was admitted in the hospital at Chennai on 05.09.2001 the claimant must have spent some amount of money. Though it is a fact that no documents were filed since the claimant/ appellant obtained treatment there which was never stated to be free of cost, Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses is to be granted towards additional medical expenses. 19. The appellant/claimant claimed Rs.12,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.20,000/- towards attendant charges. Learned Claims Tribunal though referred to Ex.A.5- transport bills did not choose to grant the amount mentioned therein and it granted only Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges and attendant charges together. Considering the contents of Ex.A.5 and the evidence of PW.1 and the absence of any rival sworn evidence, this Court is of the opinion that an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and attendant charges is required to be granted. 20. The learned Claims Tribunal rightly stated that the claimant was an LIC agent. Thus, his earnings are dependent on his field work. From the evidence on record, one would notice that from the time of the accident on 02.09.2001 till he was discharged from the hospital at Chennai on 14.05.2002 the claimant was unable to attend his regular work. The Claims Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/- towards loss of past earnings. Even if one considers Rs.5,000/- per month could be his earnings, he suffered loss of earnings for about four months. Thus, an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- is required to be granted towards loss of earnings. 21. The learned Claims Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. Going by the material on record the claimant spent more than four months for his treatment and therefore, an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- is found to be just and therefore, the same is to be granted towards extra nourishment. 22. Accordingly, the point is answered granting an additional amount of Rs.35,000/-. 23. In the result, this Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation awarded in the impugned award dated 31.07.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Chittoor in M.V.O.P.No.177 of 2008 from Rs.2,16,235/- to Rs.2,51,235/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The second respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount after giving due credit to amounts, if any, deposited already within one month before the Claims Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.