In this motor accident appeal, the High Court enhanced compensation from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.30,800/- allowing loss of hire, a fraction of surveyed damage, and specific charges, rejecting the insurer's claim of total loss due to age.
Appeal partly allowed; compensation enhanced to Rs.30,800/- with interest at 6% p.a.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2140 OF 2004
JUDGMENT:
Petitioner in M.V.O.P. No.137 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal –cum- III Additional District Court, Kurnool at Nandyal assailing the impugned order dated 9th September, 2003, filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation since he was awarded only Rs.8,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation, though he claimed a total compensation of Rs.99,285/- for the damage caused to his Jeep “Mahendra and Mahendera” bearing No. AAA 2727 in the accident.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the M.V.O.P.
3. The brief facts of the case that led to filing the present appeal are that on 27.09.2000 at about 10.15 p.m. a lorry bearing No.AP21U-1519 driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the jeep “Mahendra and Mahendera” bearing No. AAA 2727 near the bridge bearing No.343/3 on National Highway 18 in between orvakal and Nannur villages at Pudicherla bus stage, resultantly, the jeep was damaged and one Shaik Karimullah sustained injuries. The petitioner incurred heavy amounts to repair the jeep. A licensed Surveyor assessed the damage caused to the jeep at Rs.59,185/-. The petitioner in all spent Rs.62,185/- for effecting repairs apart from incurring Rs.6,000/- for labour charges and Rs.2,000/- for shifting the accident jeep to mechanic shed. The mechanic took 20 days to repair the jeep and as
a result, the petitioner deprived of his daily income of Rs.400/- per day. The petitioner also incurred Rs.20,000/- towards labour charges while repairing the jeep.
4. Respondent No.1 was set ex parte. Respondent No.2 – Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited filed counter denying the nature of the accident. It is stated that the accident occurred only due to negligent driving of the jeep by its driver who is also owner (petitioner herein). The jeep was insured with New India Assurance Company and policy was in force at the time of the accident. The petitioner has received amount from the said insurance company and therefore, he cannot again claim for the same cause. Further, the claim of the petitioner is excessive.
5. Basing on the pleadings, the relevant issues were framed as to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP21 U-1519 resulting damage to the jeep bearing No.AAA 2727 and as to the entitlement of the petitioner to claim damages for the damage caused to his jeep and the liability of the respondents to pay damages.
6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioner, petitioner himself got examined as PW.1 besides examining Licensed Surveyor as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. On behalf respondent No.2, no oral evidence was let in, however, Ex.B.1- copy of insurance policy was marked.
7. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence and other material brought on record, held that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence and that the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.8,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. Not being
satisfied with the compensation awarded, the present appeal has been preferred by the petitioner for enhancement.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner - appellant and the learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 - insurance company.
9. The only grievance of the petitioner is that while awarding the compensation, the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards damage caused to the jeep, repairs done to it and the costs of spare parts. It is contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence of PW.2 who assessed and worked out the damage caused to the jeep in the accident and put the damages at Rs.63,180/-. Ex.A.6 – bunch of bills also filed to that effect. It is contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the lorry. A clear finding is given in the criminal case to that effect. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in not awarding just compensation and in holding that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep.
10. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.2 - insurance company contends that the Jeep is quite old and it is plied on the road for about 19 years and as such it is almost lost entire life. Further, the jeep to be scrapped after 15 years as it was of the model 1981. Therefore, the learned counsel justifies the impugned order as passed by the Tribunal in not awarding any amount towards aforementioned heads.
11. It is seen that the jeep is of the year 1981 model and it is plied for about 19 years. The life span of the jeep is 15 years. The petitioner purchased the jeep five years prior to the accident for Rs.40,000/-. The Surveyor while assessing the damage caused to the jeep has not
taken into consideration the aspect of depreciation as it is 19 years’ old vehicle.
12. It is seen that the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.2 goes to show that the driver of the lorry is responsible for the accident. In view of the same, it cannot be said that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep.
13. Therefore, having regard to the evidence made available on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.8,000/- towards loss of hire charges for 20 days and that he is entitled to 1/4th of the damage assessed by the Surveyor i.e. Rs.14,796/-, which is rounded up to Rs.14,800/-, apart from Rs.6,000/- towards labour charges and Rs.2,000/- towards shifting the accident jeep to the mechanic shed. Thus, in total the petitioner is held to be entitled to a total compensation (damages) of Rs.30,800/- (Rupees thirty thousand eight hundred) only.
14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation (damages) from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.30,800/-, with interest at 6% per annum so far as the enhanced compensation (damages) is concerned. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J
Date:10.04.2013 Stp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal was justified in awarding only Rs.8,000/- compensation ignoring surveyor's report on vehicle damage.
Whether the six-year-old jeep purchased for Rs.40,000/- was entitled to any compensation for depreciation given it was plied for 19 years.
Petitioner
Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited
B.N. Rao Nalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
