Negligence established under the Motor Vehicles Act mandates just compensation for injured parties, even exceeding claimed amounts.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J

1. Respondents in M.V.O.P.No.390 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Guntur (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2011 filed the present appeal. Under the impugned award, against a claim made by the claimant for Rs.3,00,000/-, the learned MACT awarded compensation of Rs.4,86,500/- for the injuries sustained by him.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the claimant and the respondent, as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.

Case of the claimant:

3. On 23.02.2011, when the claimant was proceeding on a motorcycle near Cumbum Bus Stand Centre in Markapur Town, A.P.S.R.T.C Bus bearing AP 28 Z 898 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Thereby, the claimant fell on the road and the bus tyre ran over his right hand, resulting in amputation at the right hand shoulder joint. The claimant was hospitalized for 20 days and took follow up treatment for about two months as outpatient. The claimant suffered severe mental agony and suffering disability. Negligent driving of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident. Hence the claimant is entitled for just and reasonable compensation.

4. Claim was resisted by Respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C disowning negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and attributing negligence to the claimant.

5. On the strength of evidence covered by Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Wound Certificate, Ex.A3-Charge Sheet, Ex.A4-Discharge summary, Ex.A5-Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board, Government General Hospital, Guntur and oral evidence of PW.1-the claimant, P.W.2-the doctor and after referring to the evidence of R.W.1-the driver of the offending vehicle learned MACT found that the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident and that the claimant suffered 75% disability and awarded a compensation Rs.4,86,500/- with the brake up of Rs.4,32,000/- under the head of permanent disability, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.4,500/- towards actual loss of earnings for 45 days at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month with incidental directions as to interest, costs, disbursement etc.

Arguments of the appellant:

6(i). When the claim is made for Rs.3,00,000/-, arriving and granting of compensation at Rs.4,86,500/- is not correct.

6(ii). Negligence of the claimant in riding the motorcycle is ignored.

6(iii). There is no rationality in acceptance of income and disability by the learned MACT.

Arguments in the appeal:

For the claimant:

7(i). Compensation awarded is insufficient.

7(ii). Although the disability is 75%, it shall be taken as 100%.

7(iii). There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned decree and judgment, except for enhancement of the compensation already awarded.

7(iv). The income taken at Rs.3,000/- is very low and the compensation should have been awarded under various heads, which the learned MACT has missed.

7(v). There are good grounds to enhance the compensation.

8. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.

9. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are:

1) Whether the claimant suffered injuries due to the pleaded accident and whether the accident has occurred due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 28 Z 898 by its driver?

2) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, to what quantum? And whether the compensation of Rs.4,86,500/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable or requires any interference? if so to what extent?

3) What is the result of the appeal?

Point No.1:

10. The evidence of P.W.1/ the claimant as to negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver when seen along with Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A3-charge sheet in the light of Section 16