HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.2390
OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
The 3rd respondent-National
Insurance Company Limited-Insurer of the O.P.No.19 of 2005 on the file of the
learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-District Judge, West
Godavari (for short, ‘Tribunal’), filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicle Act,1988 (for short, ‘the Act’), for the claim filed by inured aged about 42 years of the accident dated
18.03.2003, at about 5.00 A.M., or so on the road initially for a compensation
of Rs.2,00,000/- and later amended with an application for enhancement allowed for
Rs.5,00,000/- since allowed by the tribunal granting compensation of
Rs.3,27,721/-, with interest at 7.5% p.a. preferred the appeal impugning the
quantum as excessive and unsustainable with the contention that the tribunal
failed to appreciate that the claimant sustained only simple injuries as per
the chargesheet, that the tribunal
failed to appreciate that the bullock carts were without any lights or indicators
and thereby contributed to the alleged accident, that the tribunal also failed
to note that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is contrary to the chargesheet and
the wound certificate wherein the injuries to the respondent No.1/complainant are
simple in nature, that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 as if severe injuries are created
for the purpose of the case on hand and an after thought, that the tribunal
also grossly erred in assuming the age, occupation and income and mechanically awarded
excess amounts for the injuries on a wholesale and also amounts on various
heads without entitlement, that the tribunal also erred in awarding amounts
towards three injuries and pain and suffering even without mentioning the
injuries or the nature of the injuries, that for there is no proof of income,
the tribunal has no jurisdiction to take more than Rs.15,000/- towards annual
contribution and the assumption of Rs.36,000/- per annum is baseless, that the
tribunal applied higher multiplier without entitlement and awarded amounts without
basis and in excess of entitlement, hence prays to set aside the award of the
tribunal by allowing the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant
reiterated the same contentions during course of hearing.
2. Whereas, it is the contention of the
learned counsel for the claimant that but for no cross-objections, the
compensation is utterly low and the same may be enhanced.
3. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as
arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.
4. Now the points that arise for
consideration in the appeal are:
1.
Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive
and exorbitant and requires interference by this Court while sitting in the appeal,
if so, with what just compensation and with what observations?
2.
To
what result?
Point
No.1:
5. The fact that the accident
was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver-1st respondent
of the claim petition of crime vehicle (bus) bearing No.AP 31 U 5995 belongs to
the 2nd respondent insured with the 3rd
respondent-appellant is proved from the record as also rightly concluded by the
tribunal, more particularly when the vehicle got head lights, it is not
difficult notice the objects and bullock carts coming on road and for finder of
last opportunity with the vehicle driver. On perusal of the record, it shows
that the petitioner is suffering from 100% disability and unable to move
without assistance of anybody with post traumatic para paralysis and the Ex.A.8
disability certificate issued by the P.W.3 doctor in addition to what is
mentioned in Ex.A.5 discharge summary including with reference to the C.T. scan
of the brain showing contusion on left posterior temporal lobe with paralysis
of upper and lower limbs. This Court while hearing the appeal, directed the learned
counsel for the claimant to secure presence of the claimant and the claimant is
brought by two persons lifting with great difficulty to the Court and the
claimant is unable to move or sit or squat independently which is substantiating
the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant. Thus, there is nothing
for this Court while sitting in appeal to reduce the compensation awarded by
the tribunal of Rs.3,27,721/- in all which is only for 60% permanent disability
by taking the earnings of Rs.3,000/- per month for his age 42 years but for no
cross-objections to enhance. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.
POINT -2:
6.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no costs. Consequently,
miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
_______________________
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
Date: 17.11.2014
Vvr
