N.Shiva Prakash vs P.Rajamouli And Anr

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2007 in O.P.No.2007 of 2004 passed by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court)-cum-XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad (for short ‘The Tribunal’), the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal.

Vide the aforesaid award, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.51,000/- (Rupees Fifty One Thousand only) as compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 7.00% per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to deposit the amount.

The appellant/claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road accident.

Respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company Limited.

Heard Sri C. Vikram Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

Insurance Company has not filed any appeal disputing the liability and the amount awarded by the Tribunal.

It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the appellant that on 05.10.2003 at about 06:00 P.M., the appellant along with his grandmother and others were proceeding in an auto from Sri Rampur towards Godawari Khani and when they reached Godavari Khani bridge, one jeep bearing No.AP 15/V-1168 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto from opposite direction, as a result, the appellant sustained injuries.

The Tribunal on consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, gave a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and the same vehicle was insured with respondent No.2, as such, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.51,000/-payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Aggrieved by the quantum, the claimant filed the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though he received fractural injuries and he was in the hospital for a period of 17 days, the Tribunal did not considered the same and awarded only meager amount.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal awarded sufficient amount and there is no need to interfere in the said amount.

As seen from the record, to prove the claim, father of the appellant examined as P.W.1 and Medical Officer examined as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A6.

To prove the injuries, Dr. B. Vijaya Bhaskar examined as P.W.2 and according to him, he was working as Orthopedic Surgeon in Medbon Hospital Godavari Khani. The appellant was admitted on 05.10.2003 and had undergone a surgery on 20.10.2003, K-wire fixation was done and POP was applied. Hence, the evidence of P.W2 shows that the appellant sustained one fracture injury for which he had to undergo a surgery.

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- under the head of pain and suffering which is reasonable and the same is maintained. Basing on Ex.A5, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,698/- towards medical expenses which is reasonable and the same is maintained. Further, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards incidental charges instead of the same this Court is inclined to grant Rs.25,000/- towards transportation charges and extra nourishment. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,000/- under the head of loss of studies taking the age of the appellant for consideration as minor. This Court is inclined to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of studies. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of disability. As seen from the record, considering the age of the appellant as the disability is to an extent of 15%, this Court is inclined to grant Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of disability. Further, the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards Damage to clothes.

In the light of the above mentioned discussion, the claimant is entitled to the following amounts:

Heads

Amounts

Pain and suffering

Rs.20,000/-

Medical expenses

Rs. 2,698/-

Transportation and extra nourishment

Rs.25,000/-

Loss of studies

Rs.10,000/-

Disability

Rs.1,00,000/-

Damage to clothes

Rs. 5,000/-

Total

Rs.1,62,698/- (Rounded off to Rs.1,63,000/-)

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law.

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

In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the claimants are 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 claimants is a paramount consideration the Courts should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.51,000/- to Rs.1,63,000/- (One Lakh Sixty-Three Thousand Only). The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.00% p.a. from the date of passing of award by the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondents jointly and severally after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier within one(1) month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Judgment and thereafter, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same. However, the claimants are directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount.

There shall be no order as to costs.

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