Annapurna vs Suresh & Others

J.M. Khazi, J

Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, appellant-claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173(1) of

Motor Vehicles Act.

For the sake of convenience the parties are refereed to by their rank before the Tribunal.

Claimant is the owner of Auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-28/A-5209. It is alleged that on 09.05.2010, at about 1.45 p.m. while auto

rickshaw belonging to him was parked by the side of the road near Hadagali Bus stand on NH-218, leading from Sindagi to Bijapur, a Truck bearing

registration No.KA-28/A-5321 (herein after referred to as 'offending vehicle'), driven by its driver in a rash or negligent manner, came in a high speed

and when the driver of the lorry lost control over the vehicle, it dashed against the auto rickshaw and other vehicles and also caused injury to several

persons. In the said accident, the auto rickshaw belonging to the claimant sustained damage and accordingly she sought compensation of Rs.2,20,000/.

Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle and they are jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation.

Respondent No.1 admitted that he is the owner of offending vehicle, but contended that on the date of accident, it was covered by a valid insurance

issued by respondent No.2 and the driver was holding valid licence and in the event of granting compensation, respondent No.2 may be directed to pay

same.

Respondent No.2 has admitted that the offending vehicle was covered by a valid policy issued by it, but denied its involvement in the alleged

accident. The compensation claimed is on the higher side.

During the enquiry, claimant has examined himself as PW.5 and has relied upon Ex.P30 to 35. The Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of

Rs.89,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a.

The claimant has challenged the impugned judgment and award contending that having regard to the extensive damage sustained by the auto

rickshaw in question, the compensation granted is very meager and in the light of the assessment at Ex.P31, job estimation at Ex.P33 and repair cost

at Ex.P34, he is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.2,20,000/-.

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted, though in the Lok Adalath the parties agrees to settle the matter,

but no consensus could be arrived at with regard to the exact amount. He prays to allow the appeal awarding global compensation by enhancing the

compensation by a reasonable amount.

On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No.2 supported the impugned judgment and award and has sought for dismissal of the

appeal.

It is pertinent to note that the loss assessor has assessed the marked value of the auto rickshaw in question as Rs.80,000/-. The Tribunal has

decided to grant the compensation based on the market value. The learned Presiding Officer has deducted solatium at Rs.5,000/-. He has added the

surveyors fees in a sum of Rs.4,000/- and loss of income as Rs.10,000/-. Thus, in all the Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.89,000/-.

Admittedly, with this sum of Rs.89,000/-, the claimant can neither get his damaged auto rickshaw repaired nor purchase a new auto rickshaw.

Therefore, in addition to the compensation already granted, the claimant is entitled for an additional sum towards loss and inconvenience suffered by

him on account of the damages caused to the vehicle, as a result of which his livelihood suffered. Considering all these aspects, I am of the considered

opinion that it would be reasonable to enhance the compensation by a sum of Rs.35,000/-. Of course the claimant is entitled for interest for the

enhanced amount.

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(a) The appeal is allowed in part.

(b) The appellant/claimant is entitled for additional sum of Rs.35,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization

from respondent No.2 - insurance company.

(c) The entire enhanced amount is ordered to be released in favour of appellant/claimant.

The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.