IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No : 2161 of 2000 Between: The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Adilabad. . .Petitioner And V.Sattaiah and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No : 2161 of 2000 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS SR.92421 OF 2003 JUDGMENT : This appeal filed by the claimant to the extent of disallowed claim. The accident in question occurred on 02.01.1995. The claimant who was working as Muneem (supervisor) under the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 1/T 9163. The said lorry is alleged to be driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against another lorry bearing No.TN 07 6267 resulting in fracture injuries to both the legs of the claimant apart from injuries on the face, head of the backbone. The claimant was shifted to the Government Hospital, Nizamabad, where he was treated and later he presented the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The tribunal below framed two issues for consideration, viz., (1) whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver and (2) whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so to what amount and from which of the respondents? 2) The claimant examined himself as P.W-1 and the Doctor, who issued Ex.A-7 certificate, was examined as P.W-2. The claimant also marked zerox copy of the F.I.R, insurancy policy, registration certificate, photos and the case sheet. The claim was contested only by the insurance company, who examined R.W-1, the Assistant Administrative Officer and marked the policy Ex.B-1. The tribunal below on consideration of the material, held issue No.1 in favour of the claimant and on finding that the offending vehicle is being driven by rash and negligent manner, assessed the compensation payable to the claimant. Based on the evidence on record, the tribunal below awarded Rs.35,000/- towards compensation for the injuries and fracture sustained by the claimant, which includes compensation for pain and suffering and awarded further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transport, treatment and extra nourishment thereby aggregating the total compensation of Rs.40,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, the 2nd respondent in the O.P has preferred this appeal in C.M.A.No.2161 of 2000, whereas the claimant has preferred the cross objections to extent of disallowed the compensation. The cross objections are in fact in the nature of cross-appeal and treated as such. 3) Heard both sides. 4) It is contended by the counsel for the claimant that the tribunal below has not taken into consideration Ex.A-7 coupled with the evidence of P.W-2, the doctor. Learned counsel therefore contends that one of the injuries sustained by the claimant was a grievous injury and it has, to some extent, affected his working also. The claimant states that he was acting as a supervisor in the lorry business of the owner and he used to accompany the lorry for the purpose of the said transport business. In that capacity he was accompanying the lorry on the date of the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company further submits that there is no evidence of the claimant that he is working as Muneem and therefore he has to be treated as gratuitous passenger. The evidence on record therefore is not sufficient to warrant any enhancement of the compensation as neither medical bills are filed nor any details of expenditure incurred by the claimant is exhibited before the Court below. 5) I have considered the above said submissions as mentioned. The accident occurred on 02.01.1995, by then, the Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act was amended by Central Act 54 of 1994 by adding Sub Clause I(d). Under aforesaid provision, the policy of insurance covers the risk of owner of the goods as well as his authorized representative carried in the vehicle. However, the approach of the tribunal below in treating the claimant as a gratuitous passenger and relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited V. Satpal Singh[1] was not justified. Even otherwise, the said decision was over ruled by the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited V. Asha Rani[2]. The tribunal has also not considered that P.W-1 specifically stated that he has been working as a Muneem under the 1st respondent-owner and nature of his duty was to supervise the lorry business by going in lorry and directing the parties for transporting the goods from place to place from time to time and for that the 1st respondent is paying Rs.5,000/- towards his salary. Though P.W-1 was cross-examined, the said cross examination is not directed against the afore said part of chief examination and in any case nothing is established by the respondents to dispute the said claim of P.W-1-claimant. Further, even the evidence of R.W-1, examined on behalf of the insurance company, also does not speak on the nature of engagement of the claimant on the said lorry on behalf of 1st respondent. It is therefore to be accepted that the claimant was traveling in the lorry as an authorized representative of the owner and as such the risk of his injuries was squarely covered by the insurance policy and as such the insurance company is liable for the compensation. Even the tribunal has awarded compensation jointly and severally under the impugned award. 6) So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the evidence of P.W-2 coupled with Ex.A-7 shows the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant. Three lacerations were found on the face including one near the left eye. According to the doctor, 5th injury is grievous injury. The said injury was certified by Ex.A-7 and same further tallies with Exs.A-5 and A-6 which are case sheets marked by consent and X-ray films also marked by consent. The said grievous injury has therefore not been taken into consideration by the tribunal below, apart from four other injuries suffered by the claimant. The evidence of P.W-1 further shows that on account of the said injuries, he was hospitalized firstly with the Government Hospital, Nuzivid and thereafter at the private practitioner. Over all, he expended considerable amount towards his medical treatment, transport and extra nourishment. The claimant also contends that on account of the injury to one of the eyes, his sight is also affected. The claimant was already aged about 60 years at the time of accident and the said injuries required medical treatment, which has already, affected him substantially. Though no bills or prescriptions or the discharge certificate is filed by the claimant for the five injuries suffered by him, the tribunal below ought to have award a just compensation. The amount of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the tribunal towards compensation for the injuries, extra nourishment, transport and medicines all put together therefore is clearly inadequate and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same deserves to be at least doubled. The further some of Rs.5,000/- which was granted towards transport, does not warrant any interference. 7) The cross objections, therefore, are allowed by enhancing the compensation by further sum of Rs.35,000/-, which shall also carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim till the date of realization. The appeal filed by the insurance company i.e., C.M.A.No. 2161 of 2000 is consequently dismissed and the cross objections are allowed as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR November 25, 2009 KSH [1] AIR 2000 (SC) 235=1999(10) SUPREME-87 [2] AIR 2003 (SC) 607