Mundru Venkateswarlu vs United India Insurance Company Ltd., Ongole and another

This appeal was filed by the claimant against the judgment and decree dated 10-8-1994 in OP No.335 of 1990 on the file of the Chairman (District Judge), Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ongole, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.48,000/- with interest at 12% per annum for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that was occurred on 27-7-1990 when the petitioner alongwith some others were engaged as coolies for transporting the earth in the tractor of the first respondent bearing No.APO-9668 attached with trailor No.AAE-6640 and white transporting the eight trip at the time of unloading the same at Nagalakalva and when the petitioner was standing by the side of the trailer, the driver of the tractor lifted the trailor, but since earth was struck in the trailor, due to mositure, to make the earth fell down the driver without noticing the presence of the petitioner moved the tractor forward and backward, as a result of which it hit the petitioner causing him injuries on right leg and it was fractured. The petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Ongole where he was treated as in-patient for about a week and he sustained permanent disability and he is unable to attend to do any work as his leg was amputated to the extent of above the knee. It is further stated that the petitioner was earning Rs.25/- to Rs.50/- per day and he was aged 28 years. Therefore, he claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him and for the loss of amenities and other damages.

While awarding the compensation, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the owner of the vehicle on the ground that the insurance policy taken by the owner of the tractor involved in the accident died. The insurance policy was not transferred to the third respondent, son of the owner, since died. Against that finding and not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the present appeal was filed.

The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the insurance policy was taken covering the vehicle to indemnify the third parties. Therefore, whether the policy was transferred or not in the name of third respondent is not the issue involved. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., , wherein it was held that Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 deals with the requirements of policy and limits of liabilities. It held that the insurance policy covers the liability of the insurer in respect of damages caused to the third party and not the property of the insured, as per the certificate issued by the insurer.

Further, the Full Bench of this Court in Madineni Kondaiah and others v. Yaseen Fatima and others, AIR 1986 AP 62 (FB), has held that either in the statute or in actual terms and conditions of the policy, which was still in force on the date of accident, which would prevent the legal heirs from succeeding to the car as well as rights there under. The contention of the insurance company that its liability to cover third party risks lapsed when the death of the insured in particular was referred and rejected. Therefore, in view of the ruling of the Full Bench of this Court, I hold that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal below fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle is bad. Accordingly, it is held that both the owner and insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

Coming to the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner, the doctor who treated the petitioner deposed that the petitioner sustained 80% permanent disability, due to the amputation of right leg of the petitioner above the knee. The Tribunal determined the income of the petitioner at Rs.400/- per month, which would have increased gradually to the extent of Rs.1000/- per month. The Tribunal as determined the age of the petitioner at 22 years and arrived at Rs.60,000/- as the loss of income due to the permanent disability and since the petitioner sustained 80% permanent partial disability, it awarded Rs.48,000/-.

As seen from the assertions made by the appellant, due to the amputation he is not able to attend to the coolie work as he used to attend prior to the accident. Therefore, it must be assessed as total permanent disability. Moreover, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for the loss of amenities of life, attendant charges, transportation to hospital, etc. Therefore, if the monthly income of the petitioner is taken at Rs.400/-, and multiplier of 18 is applied appropriate to the age of the petitioner as 22 years, the total loss of earnings due to 80% permanent disability comes to Rs.69,120/-(Rs.400x12x18x80/100). I am further inclined to award a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards loss of amenities in life, extra nourishment, attendant charges, transport to hospital, etc. Thus the petitioner in all is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.89,120/-which is rounded of to Rs.90,000/-.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.48,000/- to Rs.90,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation against the respondents 1 and 2 herein, jointly and severally. No costs.