CMA/37/2001 of K. Muralidhar Reddy Vs Mohd. Ismail on 31 December 2009

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant himself for enhancement ofcompensation. The brief facts are that the appellant sustained injuriesin an accident occurred on 31-05-1997. He was traveling in a jeepbearing registration No.AIY 9500 from Kukatpally to Kothapet. Whenthe jeep was at T.V. tower, Malakpet, the offending vehicle bearingregistration No.AP 12 T 2735, driven in a rash and negligent manner,hit the jeep resulting in the sudden halt of the jeep.

At that time, an ambassador car, coming behind the jeep, hit it and theappellant sustained injuries and the vehicle also suffered damages. The appellant/claimant, therefore, filed a petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and claimed a compensation ofRs.1,00,000/-. The first respondent is the owner of the offendingvehicle AP 12 T 2735 and the second respondent is the InsuranceCompany with which the vehicle was insured.

The first respondent remained ex parte and the second respondent - Insurance Company resisted the claim by putting theappellant to the proof of fact relating to the driving licence of therespective vehicles. It also resisted the claim on the ground that thepetition was bad for non-joinder of the insurer of the claimant’s jeepand the ambassador car. The tribunal formulated the followingissues:

(i) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent drivingof the offending vehicle?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensationamount as prayed for? If so, to what amount and from whom?

(iii) To what relief?

The appellant besides examining himself as P.W.1, examined another person P.W.2, who was a Mechanic. The claimant exhibiteddocuments Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the second respondent -Insurance Company, none was examined but Ex.B1 - Insurance Policywas exhibited. The appellant was a contractor as per Ex.A1. Ex.A3 isthe outpatient card and the same disclosed that the claimant sustainedsimple injuries on his right shoulder, chin and neck. These injuries aresimple in nature and the same did not result in any permanentdisability. Taking into consideration Exs.A1 and A3, the Tribunalawarded Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards injuries and Rs.2,000/-towards medical expenses. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.3,000/-towards pain and suffering and a further sum of Rs.3,000/- towardsloss of earning.

With reference to Issue No.1 i.e., negligence, since there is noappeal by the insurance company, the same need not be gone into.

Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learnedstanding counsel for the second respondent.

Having regard to the nature of injuries, the treatment for suchinjuries and the fact that the claimant could not work for some time onaccount of injuries, I am of the opinion that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal arereasonable.

As far as the compensation towards damages to the jeep, theTribunal awarded Rs.8,000/-. It is the contention of the learnedcounsel appearing for the appellant that an amount of Rs.35,000/- wasspent for the repairs of the jeep. Rs.11,390/- was spent towards therepair charges and the remaining amount was spent for purchasing thespare parts. Hence, the appellant seeks Rs.27,000/- in addition toRs.8,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. As regards the above contention,it is seen that the appellant examined the Mechanic as P.W.2 and filedEx.A5. P.W.2 was a Mechanic, who repaired the jeep. P.W.2 statedthat the jeep was in his work shop for 30 to 45 days for carrying out

repairs an he carried out denting work, welding work, engine work,radiator, painting, lining and wiring work to the vehicle. He also statedthat he charged Rs.11,390/- towards repair charges and issued the firstbill Ex.A5. It may also be seen that under the same Ex.A5 there is asecond bill containing the particulars of the spare parts purchased bythe appellant. The second bill shows that the appellant spentRs.22,382/- for purchasing the spare parts. It may be seen that thissecond bill was not noticed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal proceededon the assumption that Ex.A5 contained only one bill as regards therepairing charges of Rs.11,390/-. Since the second bill, which is partof Ex.A5, is the amount actually spent by the appellant, I am of theview that he is entitled for the amount contained in the said part ofEx.A5 for a sum of Rs.22,382/-. It is true that the Tribunal did not relyupon Ex.A4, which is the report of the assessor, but as mentionedearlier the second bill contained in Ex.A5 can be taken intoconsideration since it reflected the actual amount spent for purchasingthe spare parts and in addition to the fact that the vehicle was actuallyrepaired by the Mechanic P.W.2. Further, as reflected in the first bill ofEx.A5, an amount of Rs.11,390/- was incurred towards the repair andthe Tribunal has not assigned any reason for not accepting the first billof Ex.A5. I am, therefore, inclined to award the differential amount ofRs.3,390/- and Rs.22,382/-, which was actually incurred asexpenditure by the appellant. The award in O.P.No.773 of 1997, dated19-06-2000 on the file of the Additional Special Judge for SPE andACB cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabadis modified and in addition to the award already made a sum ofRs.25,772/- is awarded in favour of the appellant with interest at 6%from the date of appeal till the date of payment.

The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.

________________NOUSHAD ALI, J.

31[st ]December, 2009.skmr