Yellaboyina Peda Brahmaiah vs B. Srinivasa Goud and Others

G. Radhakrishna Rao, J.—These appeals are preferred against the judgment dt.27-9-1989 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 336 of 1987 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge), Guntur.

The facts giving rise to the filing of the above O.P. are that the appellant in CMA No. 793/87 who was a vegetable vendor, was travelling in a lorry bearing Regn. No. AET 5981 from Pylon Colony to reach Macherla, on 22-2-1987. The driver of the vehicle drove the lorry rashly and negligently when reached the curve near Econampt Junction on Nagarjunasagar-Macherla Road, as a result of which the lorry fell down on its right side resulting in fatal injuries to the claimant herein.

The Court below after elaborately considering the material available on record, held that the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000-00 to the claimant towards disability, pain and suffering. As against the said award, the Insurance Company preferred CMA No. 547/90 while the claimant preferred CMA No. 793/87 claiming enhancement.

Mr. Kota Subba Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contends that the claimant forcibly entered the lorry which was loaded with cement and hence he cannot be treated as a gratuitous passenger; and that the claimant cannot be termed as "passenger" relying upon the decision of this Court in R. Venkateswara Rao Vs. P. Vijayalakshmi and Others, and also relying upon the statements made by the owner of the vehicle in the counter filed before the Court below, it is further contended by the learned Counsel that the claimant is not at all a "passenger".

Basing on the allegations made by the owner of the vehicle in his counter and without examining anyone to that effect, the Insurance Company cannot claim that the claimant cannot be termed as "passenger". This cannot be a ground for the Insurance Company particularly on the facts and circumstances of the case when the passenger was allowed with goods to travel for a particular distance.

Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Court below, in this case the claimant sustained injuries on his right leg, left thigh and testicles which resulted in losing his potency. P.W.3, the Doctor, opined that the percentage of potency is at 5 to 10%. The amount of dissatisfaction on the part of his wife in view of loss of percentage of his potency cannot be evaluated. This might have also caused psychological effect on the claimant. In this view of the matter, I feel that Rs. 20,000-00, as against Rs. 10,000-00 granted by the Court below, would be the reasonable amount of compensation. I order accordingly. The claimant is also entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the appeal by him. Accordingly, CMA No. 793/87 is allowed in part and CMA No. 547/90 is dismissed. No costs.