Partly allowed

Uriti Rajendra Prasad, v. Dandangi Raju

Telangana HC5 Jul 2012MACMA/1053/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal contests the Tribunal's finding that a motor accident was not caused by rash and negligent driving. The Supreme Court set aside the finding void of evidence, establishing liability of the owner and insurer. The claimant was awarded Rs. 39,000 including compensation for injuries and vehicle damage with interest. The appeal was allowed in part.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs. 39,000 granted with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

Uriti Rajendra Prasad, Vs Dandangi Raju — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

MACMA NO.1053 OF 2005

¶3

DATED: 05.07.2012

¶4

Between: Uriti Rajendra Prasad .. Appellant And Dandangi Raju and others .. Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶6

MACMA NO.1053 OF 2005

¶7

JUDGMENT:

¶8

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/insurance company.

¶9

2. This appeal is filed by the claimant against the order dated 10.03.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam in M.V.O.P.No.162 of 2000.

¶10

3. Having been injured in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 01.03.1999 at about 02.00 PM on the national highway No.5 near Kanchili Village in Srikakulam District, the appellant filed a claim case before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The learned Tribunal after making an enquiry into the claim held that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 5 T 6459 and exonerated the respondents 2 and 3, the owner and insurer of the said lorry from liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

¶11

5. The Tribunal, however, quantified the compensation at Rs.15,000/-, but held that the appellant is not entitled for the

¶12

compensation since the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 5 TV 6459.

¶13

6. Assailing the said finding the claimant preferred the present appeal.

¶14

7. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the learned Tribunal without taking into consideration the evidence of PW.1-appellant-eyewitness as to the occurrence of accident recorded a finding that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 5 TV 6459 solely basing on the photograph filed by the appellant-claimant, which reveals that the lorry was stationed on the left side of the road. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the Tribunal below has not properly computed the compensation and it requires enhancement.

¶15

8. Two questions would arise for consideration in this appeal:

¶16

1 . Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 5 TV 6459?

¶17

2. Whether the compensation granted is just and reasonable?

¶18

Point No.1:

¶19

9. PW.1, the injured/claimant/appellant and PW.2, the pillion rider have categorically stated in their evidence before the Tribunal below that while they were proceeding on a scooter bearing No.AP 30A 2002 on National High Way No.5 and when they reached a petrol bunk near Kanchili Village, the lorry bearing No. AP 5 TV 6459 driven in a rash and negligent manner at fast speed came in the opposite direction and

¶20

dashed the scooter, due to which the claimant fell down and received severe injuries and was hospitalized. There was no contra evidence let in by the respondents before the learned Tribunal. Ex.A.2-certified copy of charge sheet filed by the appellant also reveals that the police after thorough investigation charge sheeted the first respondent-driver under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC for causing simple and grievous injuries to the appellant by rash and negligent driving. There is convincing and reliable evidence adduced by the appellant in proof of the accident showing that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 5 TV 6459. The learned Tribunal in utter-ignorance of the entire evidence available on record recorded a finding that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 5 TV 6459 on the sole ground that the photographs filed by the appellant revealed that the lorry was stationed on the left side of the road. The finding recorded by the Tribunal below is thus contrary to the evidence on record and also it is perverse. The said finding is set aside in this appeal and it is held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 5 TV 6459 and the respondent No.2, owner and the respondent No.3 insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellant/claimant.

¶21

Point No.2:

¶22

10. As regards the quantum of compensation also the Tribunal below did not apply it’s mind and granted an amount of Rs.15,000/- in lumpsum for all the injuries sustained by the appellant. Ex.A.3-certified copy of the wound certificate reveals that the appellant received three

¶23

simple injures and one grievous injury. In this appeal for the three simple injuries an amount of Rs.9,000/- is granted and for one grievous injury an amount of Rs.15,000/- is granted. This apart, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is granted for pain and suffering. The appellant filed Exs.A.6 and A-7 reports issued by the surveyor for an amount of Rs.12,617/- and the estimate given by mechanic is Rs.16,060/- in respect of the amount incurred for the repair of the scooter. However, the said documents have not been proved strictly by examining the persons who issued Exs.A.6 and A.7. At the same time Exs.A.6 and A.7 cannot be totally ignored. Therefore, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is granted towards damages to the scooter. In all, the appellant/claimant is granted compensation of Rs.39,000/- with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

¶24

11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimant succeeds and the same is allowed in part granting compensation of Rs.39,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

___________________ Date: 05.07.2012 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm

¶26

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶27

MACMA NO.1053 OF 2005

¶28

DATED: 05.07.2012

Uriti Rajendra Prasad, v. Dandangi Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uriti Rajendra Prasad, v. Dandangi Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs M. Ravi

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Shaik Yousuf Bee

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Saddu Venkata Narayana

Mamidi Venkatram Reddy Vs K. Mani

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Mudasani Madhavi

P. Sreedhar, Vs S.T. Rangaiah