IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
Chintapalli Kasi Viswanadha Reddy, E.G.District S/o Subba Reddy - Appelant
Vs.
Kolla Veeranjaneya Prasad, Krishna District & 2 Others S/o Venkataratnam – Respondent
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 325 OF 2016
Decided on : 14-12-2023
Compensation - Motor Vehicles Accident - M.V.O.P.No.7 of 2013 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and referred to sections related to compensation, liability of the insurer, and validity of driving license. The court's decision was influenced by the provisions related to assessment of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, liability of the insurer, and validity of driving license.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs.1,23,000, which the claimant found insufficient.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was not sufficient considering the nature of injuries and loss of earnings suffered by the claimant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable, and if not, to what extent it should be enhanced.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the compensation should be enhanced to Rs.1,58,000 considering the nature of injuries and loss of earnings suffered by the claimant.
Final Decision: The MACMA was allowed in part, enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,23,000 to Rs.1,58,000 with interest at 6% per annum on the difference amount of Rs.35,000 from the date of petition till the date of the award.
JUDGMENT :
1. The Award, dated 05.02.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.7 of 2013, on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram (for short “Tribunal”), is under challenge in the present MACMA filed by the appellant. The present appellant is claimant in the above MVOP and not satisfied with the compensation amount of Rs.1,23,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicles accident, he filed the present appeal with a prayer to enhance the compensation.
2. The parties to this MACMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the present claimant in M.V.O.P.No.7 of 2013 according to the averments in the petition before the Tribunal is that on 28.09.2012 he as pillion rider along with his friend Danthuluri Ramakrishna Varma (rider of the motorbike) was proceeding on Hero Honda Motorbike bearing No.A.P.05-AB-1156 and when they reached near Chepuru Village at about 9-45 p.m., the first respondent being the driver of the Lorry bearing No.A.P.16-TV-2503 (hereinafter will be referred to as “offending lorry”) came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn and dashed the motorcyclist from behind. As a result of the violent hit, the claimant and rider of the motorbike were fell on the road and the claimant sustained grievous injury to his left leg and multiple injuries to both his legs and hands and all over his body. The claimant was aged 28 years and was doing poultry business and was getting Rs.6,000/- per month. He lost his future earnings. The first respondent was the driver, the second respondent was the registered owner and the third respondent was the insurer of the offending Lorry and they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The claimant sought to award a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- for compensation.
4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte before the Tribunal.
5. The third respondent/insurance company got filed a written statement contending in substance that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the claimant only. There was no rash and negligent on the part of the first respondent. The first respondent has no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive. Hence, the petition is to be dismissed.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues:
(2) Whether the claimant is entitled for claim of compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom?
(3) To what relief?
7. On behalf of the claimant before the Tribunal P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 were marked and further Ex.X.1 and Ex.2 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company/3rd respondent, R.W.1 was examined and further Ex.B.1 and Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.4 were marked. It is evident from the appendix of evidence and further the judgment of the Tribunal.
8. On completion of enquiry and on hearing both sides, the Tribunal gave findings that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry and the driver of the offending lorry has also valid driving license to drive the vehicle and as the claimant was a third party and as Ex.B.1 covers the period of accident in respect of the offending vehicle, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs.1,23,000/- and directed the third respondent to deposit the amount with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization and that the amount is to be deposited within 30 days from the date of award and that the claimant can withdraw a sum of Rs.75,000/- and remaining amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit for a period of six
Assessment of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident should consider the nature of injuries and loss of earnings suffered by the claimant.
The court ruled that compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive and not supported by evidence, leading to a reduction in the awarded amount.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the Court's authority to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal based on the claimant's injuries, disabilities, and related expenses, as ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to enhanced compensation based on the nature of injuries and loss of earnings resulting from a car accident caused by the rash and ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability and assessment of compensation in a motor vehicle accident case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The court emphasized the necessity of applying the structured formula for compensation under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, leading to an enhanced award for the claimant.
The court held that compensation for injuries must adequately reflect the extent of injury and economic loss, enhancing the award based on re-evaluation of disability and medical expenses.
Deductions for personal expenses in compensation claims for injuries are not justified; courts must ensure just compensation reflecting the claimant's loss.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.