MACMA/2976/2011 of A. Padmesh Babu, Vs A. Adikesavulu Naidu, on 30 December 2014

JUDGMENT:

The injured claimant, preferred the appeal, having beenaggrieved by the Order/Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati (for short,’Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P No.382 of 2006 dated 09.05.2010, awardingcompensation of Rs.52,500/- (Rupees fifty two thousand five hundredonly) with interest at 6% per annum, as against the claim ofRs.3,00,000/- as against the respondents 1 and 2 viz., the owner andinsurer of the crime vehicle (bearing No.AP 03 U 4111) forenhancement of compensation as prayed for in the claim petitionunder Sections 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘theAct’).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant (claimant).Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal not chosen toappear hence taken as heard and the learned standing counsel forrespondent No.2. Perused the material on record. The partieshereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake ofconvenience in the appeal.

3. The contentions in the grounds of appeal by the appellant (claimant) in nutshell as well as oral submissions of theclaimant that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and is utterlylow and that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration of20% permanent disability suffered by the petitioner that was submittedwith referece to Ex.A6—disability certificate, hence to allow the claimas prayed before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellantreiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal.

4. Whereas it is the contention of the learned counsel for 2[nd] respondent—Insurer that the award of the Tribunal holds good for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere, hence todismiss the appeal.

5. Now the points that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the quantum of compensation and rate of interest isutterly low, unjust and if so what is the just compensation?utterly low, unjust and if so what is the just compensation?

2. To what result?

Point No.1:

6. There is no dispute on the manner of accident andinvolvement of crime vehicle of 1[st] respondent insured with 2[nd]respondent but for quantum of compensation. Admittedly, there is afracture to the right leg besides three injuries simple including abrasionover right fore-arm, fracture of right leg. The tribunal awardedRs.52,500/- for the injuries including for the fracture with pain andsuffering. PW.2 deposed that there is 20% permanent disability underEx.A6 but there is no basis for nothing to say any mal-union of thelimb, much less any disability of permanent nature in particularfunctional disability. Thus, taking into consideration of these facts, inall a sum of Rs.60,000/- is awarded as just compensation.

7. Coming to rate of interest, the Tribunal awarded at 6% perannum which is utterly low. However, to enhance the rate of interestfrom 6% per annum to 7.5% per annum vide decisions in TNTransport Vs. Raja Priya[[1]],Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh[[2]]and DDAVs. Joginder S. Monga[[3]]. Accordingly, pont-1 is answered.

Point No.2:

8. In the result the appeal is allowed by enhancing thecompensation from Rs.52,500/- (Rupees fifty two thousand fivehundred only) to Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) with jointliability with interest at 7.5% per annum. The rest of the terms awarded by the Tribunal holds good. No costs.

9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

30[th] December, 2014Knl

_____________________

Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

M.A.C.M.A. No.2976 OF 2011

Knl

[1]2005 (6) SCC 236

[2]2013 ACJ 1403

[3]2004(2)SCC-297

30[th] December, 2014