SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(AP) 78

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : NEELAM SANJIVA REDDY
Chinna Gangappa - Appellant
Versus
B.Sanjeeva Reddy - Respondent
Decided On : 02-03-97

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - SECTION 2 (24) - Motor Accidents claim – FIR - Appellant was loading some bags into trailer driver reversed tractor towards trailer without observing persons working around and without giving proper precautions to workers and consequently appellant who was loading the trailer was crushed between trailer and the tractor - His both legs were crushed - After rendering first-aid in Government hospital at Adoni he was shifted government hospital Bellari for expert treatment - He gave complaint about accident -treated at much expense injuries have resulted in permanent disability - He cannot walk freely without limp and cannot do any hard work much less labour work - He underwent lot of pain and suffering due to injuries - He preferred above claim for total compensation from owner and insurer tractor-trailer involved in accident claim was resisted - Tribunal found that appellant sustained fractures resulting in permanent disability in the accident involving tractor-trailer but found that the appellant failed prove that accident was caused due rash and negligent driving tractor by driver and consequently awarded compensation only on principle of no fault liability dismissing –Held, Court and also some other decisions held that term public place term of art same having been defined specifically by sub-clause first thing to remember with regard to definition is that an inclusive one - Secondly terms makes clear that any road street way or other place whether thoroughfare not public place for purposes only condition being that public should have a right of access - Thirdly expression used in definition is right of access and not access as of right - Lastly when states that any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by stage carriage public place case appellant was at workshop for purpose of loading and unloading goods - His presence in the premises of the auto garage was not prohibited - Evidently he was there with express or implied permission of owners of garage where the accident occurred has to be construed as public place as defined and consequently insurer is also bound indemnify liability of owner of the vehicle - There cannot any dispute about liability of the owner of vehicle compensate victim of the accident in this case - Therefore both owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable pay compensation to appellant Court inclined to fix his daily income basing on minimum wages of hamali - Loss of future income due permanent partial disability calculated on multiplier which is appropriate age of appellant comes evidence shows that he was treated for over a month in-patient and loss of income during treatment for about one month comes appellant pleaded and testified that he spent about towards medicines treatment and other incidental expenses - In absence of any documentary evidence Court inclined to assess expenditure on these counts rate Considering nature of injuries Court inclined to award towards pain and suffering - Thus appellant is entitled to total compensation – Appeal allowed

NEELAM SANJIVA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE Injured-petitioner in O. P. 334/88 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl. District Judge, Kurnool, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, preferred this appeal.

( 2 ) THE appellant, aged about 27 years was eking out his livelihood as a labourer and Hamali earning about Rs. 25/- per day. On 25-1-88 at about 5. 30 p. m. , the tractor AAQ 5260 and trailer 5261 were in the auto garage of one satyanarayana at Adoni. The tractor was under repairs since sometime separately in the garage. While the appellant was loading some bags into the trailer, the driver reversed the tractor towards the trailer without observing the persons working around and without giving proper precautions to the workers and consequently the appellant, who was loading the trailer, was crushed between the trailer and the tractor. His both legs were crushed. After rendering first-aid in the Government hospital at Adoni, he was shifted to government hospital, Bellari for expert treatment. He gave a complaint about the accident on 3-2-88. He was treated at much expense. The injuries have resulted in permanent disability. He cannot walk freely without limp and cannot do any hard work much less labour work. He underwent a lot of pain and suffering due to injuries. He preferred the above claim for a total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 / - from the owner and insurer of the tractor-trailer involved in the accident. The claim was resisted. The Tribunal found that the appellant sustained fractures resulting in permanent disability in the accident involving tractor-trailer AAQ 5260 and AAQ 5261 on 25-1-88 at about 5. 30 p. m. , but found that the appellant failed to prove that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver and consequently awarded compensation only on the principle of no fault liability dismissing the rest of the claim.

( 3 ) SRI K. Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is abundant evidence to establish that the accident was caused only due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver and not due to any negligence on the part of the appellant and that the tribunal erred in holding otherwise. He further submitted that the compensation claimed by the appellant towards loss of future income, loss of income during treatment for injuries, pain and suffering, medicines, treatment, transport and incidental expenses is quite reasonable and the appellant is entitled to the said amount.

( 4 ) SRI M. Sreenivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the insurer-respondent, submitted that the accident did not take place in a public place and therefore the insurer is not liable to pay compensation.

( 5 ) THE owner or insurer has not filed any appeal or cross-objections questioning the finding of the tribunal that the appellant sustained fractures of legs and consequent permanent disability in an accident involving tractor- trailer AAQ 5260 and AAQ 5261 driven by its driver on 25-1-88 at about 5. 30 p. m. in the premises of the auto garage of Satyanarayana at Adoni. The evidence of P. W. 1, the appellant amply shows as to how his legs were crushed between the trailer and the tractor when the tractor was driven by its driver in reverse without proper precautions in a rash and negligent manner. This version finds place in Ex. A-1, FIR given by P. W. I. Ex. A-2 shows that on the basis of Ex. A-1, a case in Cr. No. 25/88 was registered at Adoni II Town Police station and after due investigation of the case, the driver of the tractor was challaned in the Court of the Spl. Judicial II Class Magistrate, Adoni for causing this accident. The respondents did not examine the driver of the tractor to rebut the evidence of P. W. I. The evidence of P. W. I cannot be discredited merely on the ground that there was a delay in giving complaint to the police. Considering the fact that both legs of the appellant were crushed, it was qu









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top