M/S.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Mr.Akarapu Somanarasaiah
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA C.M.A. No.2590 OF 2004 JUDGMENT:
Respondent No.3 - M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited in O.P.No.673 of 1997 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - District Judge, Khammam (for short 'Tribunal'), preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'Act'), on the ground that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are excessive.
2. By the order and decree, dated 17.06.2003 in the aforesaid O.P., the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.75,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.2,00,000/- towards 80% partial permanent disability, making a total of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum thereon, as against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/- laid by respondent No.1 herein under Section 166 of the Act.
3. Respondent No.1 - petitioner, has not filed any crossobjection, nor any appeal according to the learned counsel for respondent No.1.
4. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the appellant herein, who are driver, owner and insurer of Jeep bearing registration No.AP 20T
4258, respectively, are respondents as such in the aforesaid O.P., while respondent No.1 is the petitioner.
5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the aforesaid O.P.
6. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned standing counsel for the appellant - respondent No.3 - Insurer, and Sri M. Rajamalla reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - petitioner. Though, notice was served on respondent No.2, driver of the vehicle, none appears for him, while the appeal was dismissed for default against respondent No.3, owner of the jeep, by order, dated 08.02.2016.
7. The learned standing counsel for the appellant - insurer having referred to the observation of the Tribunal at page No.1 of the order that respondent No.1, driver of the vehicle, which is Jeep, was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC, but, however, would agree that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries described in Exs.A-3 and A-4, which are medical certificate and discharge summary and proved through the evidence of PW.2, the doctor.
8. The evidence of PW.2, as projected in the order, would show that the petitioner sustained comminuted fracture of shaft femur of left, fracture of neck of scapular of both sides, fracture of pelvic and pneumothorax and brachial plexus injury on right side, due to which
the petitioner was effected with paralysis to right upper limb and he was in-patient for 18 days in Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, and according to PW.2, the petitioner sustained 80% permanent disability. The order also shows at later stage, that the right leg of the petitioner was totally paralyzed. Even he underwent major surgical interventions, and that was the reason, the aforesaid amounts were awarded by the Tribunal.
9. When kept in view, that the petitioner sustained paralysis to right upper limb and also right lower limb on account of the injuries referred to in the above, the amount of Rs.75,000/- granted towards pain and suffering and Rs.2,00,000/- towards partial permanent disability of 80% suffered by the petitioner cannot be viewed as excessive or exorbitant. The amount of Rs.1,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is based on the documentary evidence (Ex.A-5), of course, it shows Rs.1,63,145/- towards treatment charges, but the Tribunal has not separately awarded any amount towards transport charges or extra nourishment and attendant charges or any amount towards temporary loss of earnings. When kept in view, these circumstances, certainly, the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, has to be viewed as just and adequate compensation on account of injuries sustained by the petitioner, whose mobility is effected, besides right upper limb becoming non-functional. However, rate of interest at 9% per annum
granted by the Tribunal deserves to be reduced and, therefore, the same is reduced to 7.5% per annum in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh1.
10. In the result is, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent of reducing the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum on the amount awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till realization, while confirming the order in all other respects. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these appeals, stand disposed of.
___________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J October 25, 2017.
Mgr
1. (2013) 9 SCC 54