COMMON JUDGMENT

Introductory:

1. The claimant in M.V.O.P.No.68 of 1999, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.81,265/- as against the claim made for Rs.3,00,000/- under decree and order dated 28.11.2001 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short “the learned MACT”), filed the present appeal.

2. Both the respondents remained ex parte before the learned MACT. However, in this appeal, respondent No.2 / Insurance Company is represented by Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel.

3. Heard both sides.

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

Case of the claimant:

5(i). The claimant was working as a regular Mazdoor in the Telephone Department, Chandramoulinagar, Guntur. While he was traveling along with other employees on 20.05.1995 at about 02:30 p.m. in a van bearing No.AP 7T 2738 of the Telephone Department and when the van reached Chintaguntla Village of Markapur Mandal, a vehicle / lorry of respondent No.1 bearing No.AP 10T 2979 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) came in the opposite direction and dashed the van in which the claimant was travelling, causing grievous injuries to his both legs and left hand and resulting in the death of two other employees traveling in the said vehicle.

(ii). A case in crime No.37 of 1995 for the offences under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, who was subsequently charge sheeted.

(iii). The petitioner / claimant was initially shifted to G.G.H., Guntur, where he was treated as an inpatient for four days. From there, he was shifted to Dr. Laxmana Swamy Hospital, Laxmipuram, Guntur, where he has undergone five major surgeries and was an inpatient in the said hospital for two months and incurred Rs.75,000/- towards the treatment etc. Due to the accident, he became permanently disabled. He sustained loss of salary. He is suffering from a permanent disability due to shortening of legs. He was aged „35‟ years as on the date of accident.

(iv). The owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle are liable to pay compensation. Since the respondents remained ex parte, the learned MACT formulated points touching accident, negligence and entitlement of the claimant for compensation and awarded the compensation referred to above by relying on the evidence of claimant as P.W.1 and the Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A4-Charge sheet, Ex.A2-Certificate issued by Dr.Y.Lakshmanaswamy, Ex.A5-Pay Slip and Ex.A6-Disability Certificate. One Dr. Y. Lakshmanaswamy was examined as P.W.2.

6. The learned MACT awarded Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment. The contention as to loss of promotion was not accepted for want of evidence. However, the learned MACT awarded Rs.16,265/- towards loss of income for a period of five months at the rate of Rs.3,253/- per month and Rs.60,000,/- for three grievous injuries at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per each and in all, awarded compensation of Rs.81,265/-.

7. The appellant now filed an interlocutory application vide I.A.No.1 of 2024 invoking Order XLI Rule 27 r/w. Section 151 CPC for receiving additional evidence viz. hospital bill dated 15.03.2006 indicating the date of admission as inpatient on 02.02.2006 and date of discharge as 15.03.2006, wherein the expenditure is shown as Rs.68,050/-, which was heard along with the present appeal.

Arguments in the appeal:

For the claimant:

8(i). Additional evidence may be considered.

(ii). Compensation awarded is not in tune with the precedential guidance laid down in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343, Mohd. Sabeer alias Shabir Hussain vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1701 T.J. Parameshwarappa alias Parameshwarappa alias J.T. Parameshwarappa alias Talaikena Gowdra Paremeshwarappa vs. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Compa