MACMA/1733/2016 of RAMAVATHI BALU, GUNTUR DIST Vs V SREENU NAIK, GUNTUR DIST & 2 OTHERS on 31 December 2024

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed against the order dated 10.02.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.255 of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur (hereinafter called as „the Tribunal‟).

2. The appellant is the claimant before the Tribunal. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the owner, insurer, and driver of the Auto bearing No. AP 07 TA 2720 (hereinafter referred to as “crime vehicle”) respectively.

3. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:

i) On 07.12.2011, the petitioner along with others, proceeded in an auto of Respondent No.1, to Mallapuram tanda of Nalgonda District, to attend a funeral and at about 6.00 p.m. in the evening, again in the auto of Respondent No.1, was returning to his village, and when it reached near bridge on Macherla Sagar road, at about 11.00 p.m., Respondent No.3 (driver), drove the auto at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, and could not control the auto, as a result it turned turtle, leading to fracture on his left hand wrist, left ribs, left ear and head, besides other injuries all over his body and was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Macherla, and after taking first aid, for better treatment was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur.

ii) Due to the said injuries, he claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- against the respondents.

4. The Respondent Nos.1 and 3 have remained ex parte.

5. The Respondent No.2, insurer of the auto of Respondent No.1, filed written statement refuting the claim of the petitioner, and interalia it is the case of Respondent No.2, there is no rash and negligence on the part of Respondent No.3, in the accident, and that the police records reveal Respondent No.3, drove the auto of Respondent No.1, without possessing valid and effective driving license, and the auto had no valid permit and fitness certificate, and the auto was overloaded during the accident, thus, Respondent No.1, infringed conditions of insurance policy, and lastly, it is the contention of Respondent No.2, petitioner has not suffered any permanent disability, and is able to perform his activities as usual and there is no loss in his earning capacity, therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim.

6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., auto bearing No. AP 07 TA 2710?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and against whom?

3. To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A18. On behalf of the Respondents, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B5 and Exs.X1 to X5.

8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver, held that claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,90,595/- with interest at 9 % per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization against the Respondent No.2 and the Respondent No.2 recover the same from the Respondent Nos.1 and 3.

9. It is against the said order; the present appeal is preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation.

10. Heard Sri G.V.S. Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

11. Now, the only point that arises for determination is “Whether there is any flaw in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant? And to what extent?”

12. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said crime vehicle.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the petitioner sustained disability @ 20 % as per the evidence of PW2 who is a qualified doctor, but the Tribunal has taken only 10 % disability alone which should be interfered with and the order for enhancement of compensation.

14. Against the same, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that the Tribunal has given sufficient and cogent reasons in reducing the disability from 30 % to 10 %, after evaluating the evidence of PW2, and the evidence, which was to be brought from the Medical Board, Government General Hospital, Guntur, and well-articulated Judgment pronounced by the Tribunal and no interference is required.

15. This Court perused the material on record. It is pertinent to note through the evidence of PW2 that the petitioner got himself admitted in Tulasi Multi Specialty Hospital, Guntur on 08.12.2011 to 21.12.2011 for having sustained three injuries and according to him 20 % permanent disability. But the Court/Tribunal itself referred the petitioner to Medical Board, Government General Hospital, Guntur, upon on his request and he was examined by team of Doctors and got Ex.A18 disability certificate which is 20 % permanent disability. 16. It is apposite to refer to the Judgment of the Tribunal in paragaraph No.24 as follows:

The evidence of PW2, the disability to petitioner is confined to his left upper limb only, and if it is applied to whole of his body certainly it will come down, and it is the contention of the petitioner he was doing coolie and cultivation work and because of the fractures received in the accident is permanently disabled, and from the evidence of PW2, disability of petitioner is confined to his left upper limb, only that too because of limitation of left wrist range of motion, and in view of this deficiency in his functional condition, it cannot be said that the petitioner is totally prevented from carrying on his coolie and cultivation, and going by the evidence of PW2, the disability to petitioner is confined to his left upper limb, and considering the same with the nature of work petitioner was doing, it can be concluded, the petitioner has suffered 10 % disability, and the same is adopted for assessing loss in his earning capacity.

17. From the above, it is crystal clear that the disability of the petitioner is confined to his left upper limb and considering the same with the nature of work, the petitioner was doing, it can safely be concluded that the petitioner has suffered 10% disability alone, and the same is adopted for assessing loss in his earning capacity.

18. This Court, after perusing the material on record and evaluating the entire evidence, including the documents from the Government General Hospital, Guntur, finds that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the liability of the Insurance Company.

19. Therefore, this Court could not find any merit to enhance the claim as prayed for in this appeal. Hence, in the considered view of this Court, the award passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

20. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________

JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

Date:31.12.2024 KNN