JUDGEMENT
B.N. Rao Nalla, J. -
(1.)SINCE the subject matter of these appeals arises out of the same accident and the parties are one and the same, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.)M.A.C.M.A.No.2772 of 2007 is filed by the claimant and M.A.C.M.A.No.198 of 2008 is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company against the order, dated 21.3.2007 passed in O.P.No.1948 of 2000 by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed in the O.P.
The brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows: The petitioner was aged 38 years at the time of the accident and he was the Managing Director of Akhil Ceramics Limited and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. On 23.12.1994, the petitioner went to Ananthapur in his Maruthi Esteem Car and therefrom he was travelling by that car along with others to go to Kanekal. At about 5.30 p.m. when the Car reached between Ananthapur and Kalyandurg at Kalupalli Thanda, a lorry bearing No.APQ 5897 being driven in a rash and negligent manner came in the opposite direction, and dashed against the Car, as a result, the petitioner sustained injuries to his skull and the Car was badly damaged. P.S.Beluguppa registered a case in Crime No.101 of 1994 against the driver of the lorry. The petitioner was treated in the Government hospital, Ananthapur and later shifted to National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bangalore, where he underwent major surgery, and consequently, he is unable to lift his left hand, unable to walk and is still undergoing treatment. Further, his entire left part of the body is paralysed and he is suffering from pain and giddiness, as such, he is unable to concentrate on his profession. Hence, he claimed Rs. 78,92,000/-as compensation.
(3.)THE first respondent-owner of the lorry remained ex parte. THE second respondent-insurance company filed counter denying that the petitioner is an industrialist and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. It disputes the manner of the accident as averred in the claim petition as well as the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry. It is stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Esteem driven by the petitioner and the owner of the Maruthi Esteem and its insurer are necessary parties to the petition. THE wound certificate discloses that the injuries are simple in nature and the Doctors have assessed the partial disability at 50%. Further, it is stated that the petitioner was driving a new car, without temporary registration and contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. THE petitioner was recovered completely after being treated in NIMHANS, Bangalore and the claim made by him is highly excessive and without any basis. It is denied that the petitioner is unable to sit or walk freely and suffering from severe head ache and reeling sensation or with any neurological problem. Further, it is stated that the petitioner would not be put to any loss as he is a share holder in Akhil Ceramics Limited.
Based on the pleadings of both sides, the following issues were framed:
i. Whether the accident occurred on 23.12. 1994 due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.APQ 5897, by its driver, hit the Car of the petitioner and caused grievous injuries to the petitioner? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent? iii. To what relief?
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.