IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A.No.1649 of 2008 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Manager, R.S. Road, Kurnook, having its Third Party Motor Claims Cell, Madan Mohan Building, R.P. Road, Secunderabad rep. by its Manager ..... APPELLANT AND Bingidoddi Giddaiah and another ..... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: Heard Sri G.S. Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri T.C. Krishnan, learned counsel for the first respondent. 2. This MACMA is filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited aggrieved by the award made in M.V.O.P.No.609 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Court, Kurnool (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for the purpose of convenience). 3. In the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the issues and having recorded the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and after perusal of Exs.A-1 to A-10, Exs.X-1 to X-3 and Ex.B-1, the Tribunal below came to the conclusion that the Claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,68,000/- subject to the deduction of compensation, if any, awarded under no fault liability, to the petitioner with costs and interest thereon at 7.5 % per annum from the date of the petition to till the date of realization. 4. Sri G.S. Prakash Rao, the learned counsel representing the appellant would maintain that the Tribunal had not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and the Tribunal totally erred in fixing the liability of compensation at Rs.1,68,000/- which is definitely on higher side. The learned counsel also would maintain that there is improbability relating to the place of accident as well. The learned counsel also pointed out to Exs.A-1 to A-3 as well and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances, since the findings recorded in this regard cannot be said to be sustainable findings and the said findings are to be disturbed. The learned counsel also would maintain that the quantum of compensation fixed in a different heads also being not correct and multiplier also adopted is being not correct. Hence, this MACMA is to be allowed. 5. On the contrary Sri T.C. Krishnan, learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that in fact this unfortunate Claimant is entitled for more compensation but, however, the Claimant being satisfied the award made by the Tribunal below had not preferred any independent MACMA. As such the learned counsel would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the findings are to be confirmed and the MACMA to be dismissed. 6. For the purpose of convenience the parties hereinafter would be referred to as petitioner/Claimant and respondents as shown in M.V.O.P. aforesaid. The said O.P. was filed claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- from respondent Nos.1 and 2 for receipt of injuries in a road accident on 08-06-2005. The case of the Claimant in brief is that on 08-06-2005 at about 2.30 p.m., while the petitioner was near Santhosh Nagar, kurnool to go to a hotel to take lunch with his Luna, a lorry bearing No.AP-24-V-0391 (hereinafter be referred as ‘the accident vehicle) came from Bellary Chowrastha side in a rash and negligent way with high speed without blowing horn and dashed the petitioner who was on extreme left side of the road on parking his Luna and as the result of it, the petitioner fell down and the lorry ran over his left leg and thereby he received multiple grievous injuries. In the said accident he received 1) fracture to both bones of left lower leg 2) a choup would of 12X6 cm., over back of left knee (with fresh bleeding), 3) a laceration on right foot apart from other multiple injuries. Soon after the accident he was taken to Government General Hospital, Kurnool for treatment. The petitioner could not move from the bed even for answering calls of nature without the assistance of anybody because of fracture to both bones to left lower leg. It is further stated by the petitioner that he was aged about 24 years by the date of the accident and was getting income of Rs.2,000/- per month as a painter. But because of fracture to both bones of left leg he is unable to do the work of painter and thereby he has lost the source of his livelihood. He having become disabled on account of fracture to both bones of left leg, he is claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- from the respondents 1 and 2. 7. The first respondent had not chosen to contest the matter. The second respondent had filed counter denying certain averments made in the O.P. It is pleaded that the petitioner must prove that he was working as painter prior to the accident and was getting income of Rs.200/- per day and he alone was maintaining his family by way of filing of necessary oral and documentary evidence. According to this respondent the accident dated 8-6-2005 at 2.30 p.m., occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accident vehicle by its driver is false and incorrect and the same is to be proved by the petitioner strictly by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence. The petitioner also has to prove that he took treatment in Government General Hospital, Kurnool as an inpatient and could attend to his work without the assistance of anybody is to be proved by the petitioner strictly by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence. It is stated by the second respondent that the petitioner drove the Luna in a rash and negligent way without observing the vehicle moving on the road and on account of negligent driving of Luna by him, the accident occurred. The petitioner contributed for the accident by driving Luna in a rash and negligent way. Finally, the second respondent has contended that the claim made by the petitioner and the interest claimed by him is excessive and exorbitant without any basis and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. On the strength of this pleadings the following issues were settled for trial before the Tribunal: 1. Whether the accident dated 08-06-2005 occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP-24-V-0391 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, from which of the respondents and if so to what extent ? 3. To what relief ? 9. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-10, Exs.X-1 to X-3 and Ex.B-1 and came to the conclusion that the Claimant is entitled to Rs.1,68,000/- with interest at 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with costs. Hence, the present MACMA. 10. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on record the following points arises for consideration: 1. Whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal below to be confirmed or to be disturbed in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case ? 2. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to ? 11. POINT No.1: The petitioner himself examined a PW-1 and Dr.B. Chandranna was examined as PW-2. Exs.A-1 to A-10 also had been marked. The said documents are hereunder: Ex.A-1 C.C. of First Information Report in Cr.No.85/2005, dated 8-6- 2005 of Kurnool Traffic Police Station. Ex.A-2 CC of the charge sheet in C.C.No.176/2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool Ex.A-3 CC of the wound certificate of the petitioner Ex.A-4 CC of the Judgment in CC No.176/2005 on the file of Spl. Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Kurnool Ex.A-5 Discharge record issued by the NIMS, Hyderabad Ex.A-6 Out patient card Ex.A-7 Disability Certificate of the petitioner issued by the District Medical Board, Orthopedic, Government General Hospital, Kurnool Ex.A-8 Profession certificate issued by the Sarpanch, Konganapadu Gram Panchayat, Kurnool Mandal Ex.A-9 Bunch of medical bills Ex.A-10 Positive photo of the petitioner. 12. Apart from this Ex.X-1 case sheet of the petitioner, Ex.X-2 O.P. Chit and Ex.X-3 X-ray film also had been marked. This ‘X’ series had been duly proved by examining PW-2 the Doctor. The Tribunal appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and ultimately came to the conclusion that the Claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,68,000/-. This court had carefully gone through Ex.B-1 the insurance policy copy of the crime vehicle, Exs.X-1 to X-3 which had been duly proved through PW-2 and also had gone though Exs.A-1 to A-10. The Tribunal while computing the compensation recorded reasons at paragraph Nos.12 and 13 in detail and after making calculations came to the conclusion that the quantum of compensation to be rounded off to Rs.1,68,000/- which is payable to the Claimant. 13. On a careful analysis of findings recorded by the Tribunal below this court is satisfied that there is no illegality or legal infirmity. No doubt, certain submissions were made that the Claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation but however, the Claimant, as such, had not preferred any independent MACMA. Hence, this court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to the said aspect and the findings recorded by the Tribunal below are hereby confirmed. 14. POINT No.2:- In the result, the MACMA is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J April 27, 2010. Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A.No.1649 of 2008 April 27, 2010