AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.Gopala Krishna Rao, J
1 The appellant is the second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.295 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor and the respondents are the petitioner and first respondent in the said case.
For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.
The claimant filed a Claim Petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 31.08.2005.
The brief averments of the petition are as follows:
On 31.08.2005 in the early hours, the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 16Y 1622 has engaged the petitioner and others to load Tomato boxes at different places in Vaddepalle and Mulabagal and at about 7.45 a.m. when the lorry reached near Srinivasaswamy Temple on Punganur-Mulabagal road, Punganur town, the driver of lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle, due to which the lorry went into a ditch, resulting which the inmates of the lorry, including the petitioner, received multiple grievous injuries and the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation.
The first and second respondents filed counters denying the claim application and contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
i. Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini lorry bearing No.AP 16Y 1622?
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount?
iii. Whether the respondents are liable to pay the compensation?
iv. To what relief?
During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.
At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal allowed the petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,22,000/- towards compensation to the claim petitioner. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the second respondent/ Insurance Company filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal.
Heard learned counsels for both the parties.
Now, the point for consideration is:
Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference?
POINT :-
On appreciation of entire evidence on record, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident was occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle lorry. Ex.A1 certified copy of First Information Report and Ex.A3 certified copy of charge sheet prove about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle lorry. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there is no legal flaw or infirmity in the finding given by the Tribunal.
Coming to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.2,22,000/- towards total compensation. The counsel for appellant argued that the injured was a gratuitous passenger and therefore Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. As seen from the material on record, the driver of the lorry has engaged the petitioner and others to load the Tomato boxes at different places in Vaddepalle and Mulabagal. The same was mentioned in the First Information Report and the same was also reflected in the charge sheet. On considering the material on record, the injured was traveling in the lorry as one of the coolie and in First Information Report also it was mentioned that the petitioner and others were employed as coolies to load the Tomatos into the lorry and the Tribunal, by applying a decision of P.Venkata Ramana Vs. Chinthaguntla Kumar 2010(2) ALD 281, directed the Insurance Company and owner of the offending vehicle jointly to pay the total compensation to the petitioner. The copy of the policy is marked as Ex.B1. Ex.B1 recitals go to show that the premium was paid for the driver, owner and two employees and the premium also paid for N.F.P.P.(Non-Fare-Paying Passenger) As seen from Ex.B1 copy of the policy, the petitioner is covered with the insurance and he travelled in the lorry as a coolie to load the Tomatos.
The Insurance Company severely pleaded that the percentage of disability taken by the Tribunal is excessive. The Tribunal by considering the medical evidence and also considering the oral evidence, came to conclusion that the disability sustained by the petitioner/ injured is 30%. On considering the Ex.X2 disability certificate and Ex.X1 case sheet, I am of the considered view that the disability sustained by the petitioner is arrived at 20%. The Tribunal arrived the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-i.e., Rs.36,000/- per annum and appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of the injured is ‘15’. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled an amount of Rs.1,08,000/- (Rs.36,000/- x 15 x 20%) towards loss of earnings due to permanent disability. The learned Tribunal by giving cogent reasons awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, transport, attendant charges and other expenses. There is no need to change the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled an amount of Rs.1,68,000/- towards total compensation.
In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the order dated 28.06.2011 passed in MVOP No.295/2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor is modified by reducing the compensation amount from Rs.2,22,000/-to Rs.1,68,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.