Budigepaka Iddamma vs K. Vijaya Laxmi And Another

This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 31.08.2010 passed in O.P.No.886 of 2007 on the file of the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge (Special Sessions Judge for trial of SC/STs (POA) Act Cases), Nalgonda

(for short, the Tribunal).

For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a

motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 17.07.2006 while the claimant, along with her villagers namely Jakinalapally Satyanrayana and Chitram

Lalamma, were proceeding in Auto bearing No.AP 24 V 2454 in order to go to Devarakonda and when the auto reached Vusikebavi outskirts, one

Trolley Auto bearing No.AP 22 U 4874 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the auto, in which the

claimant and others were traveling. As a result of which, the claimant and others sustained injuries and the claimant sustained fractures to her hands

and legs. Immediately after the accident the claimant was shifted to Community Health Center, Deverakonda and thereafter, she took treatment in a

private hospital and she incurred Rs.30,000/- for her treatment. Basing on a complaint, a case in Crime No.61 of 2006 has been registered against the

driver of the Trolley Auto bearing No. AP 22 U 4874. The claimant filed aforesaid O.P. against respondent Nos.1 and 2, being owner and insurer of

the aforesaid Trolley Auto, respectively, claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by her.

Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent also filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and

contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed before the Tribunal:-

1) Whether the claimant sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 22 U 4874?-

2) Whether the claimant is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

During trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was

adduced but Ex.B1-Policy was marked with consent.

After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of driver of the Trolley Auto bearing No.AP 22 U 4874, awarded total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per

annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. said amount, the claimant filed enhancement of compensation.

Being not satisfied with the the present appeal seeking Heard both sides and perused the record.

The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the claimant is that though the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled to Rs.3,64,000/-

towards compensation but awarded Rs.2,50,000/- as the claimant restricted her claim at Rs.2,50,000/-It is further submitted that since the Motor

Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and as per the law laid down by the Apex Court, the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than

claimed.

A perusal of the material on record would show that in paragraph No.8 while answering the issue No.2, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding

that the claimant is entitled to Rs.3,64,000/- under various heads. Since the claimant has restricted her claim at Rs.2,50,000/-, the Tribunal awarded a

sum of Rs.2,50,000/- only. The record also reveals that the claimant has sustained 50% permanent disability.

In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another (2011) 10 SCC 756, the Apex Court while

referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) held as under:

“It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in

Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled

to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident.â€​

In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the claimant is entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed. Further, the

Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimant is a paramount consideration the Tribunal should always

endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimant to a just and reasonable extent. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs.3,64,000/- as assessed by the

Tribunal.

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.3,64,000/-.

The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award by the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by

respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. However, the claimant is directed to pay deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order

as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.