JUDGMENT
M. Narayana Reddy, J.
1. This judgment, According to law, based on the legal material placed on record arises out of a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the sole appellant against R-1 and R-2 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, questioning the validity and legality of the adjudication made by and set forth in para 2, infra.
2. Award dated 28.4.2000 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Court of the I Addl. Distt Judge), Kurnool, made in M.V.O.P. No. 202 of 1998 of its file and the decree of even date that followed the same therein.
3. Perused the material papers of the record.
4. Arguments were heard of the learned Counsel for the sole appellant and learned Counsel for the contesting respondents.
5. Sole appellant herein corresponds to the sole claimant in the said M.V.O.R No. 202 of 1998 of the said Tribunal. R-1 and R-2 herein correspond respectively to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 therein.
6. After due settlement of the issues in the said O.P. No. 202 of 1998, filed before it by the sole claimant against R-1 and R-2 under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the recovery of total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- together with interest and costs thereon in respect of the injuries and disabilities alleged to have been sustained by him in a motor vehicle Accident that occurred on 8.5.1997 due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing No. AP 21-T 3323, the Tribunal tried the same as per Section 169 of the said Act, in the process whereof, it recorded the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and R.W. 1 and exhibited the documentary evidence by way of Exhs. A-1 to A-18 and Exhs. B-1 and B-2 and Sxh. X-1 and later, after due arguments there into, finally adjudicated thereupon by the now impugned award and the decree set forth in para 2, supra, as under-
(a) awarding a total compensation of Rs. 45,000/- together with simple interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. till actual realization thereof and proportionate costs thereon;
(b) directing R-1 only to pay to the sole claimant exclusively all the monies covered by Clause (a), supra;
(c) exonerating R-2 from its liability to pay any part of of the monies covered by Clause (a), supra; and
(d) dismissing the O.P. in to to against R-2 and in respect of the rest of claims against R-1 but with costs to none.
7. Questioning the validity and legality of the said award and the decree and the foregoing adjudication, R-1 and R-2 did not file any independent CMAs.
8. Nor did any of them file cross-objections in the present CMA.
9. The sole claimant filed the present civil miscellaneous appeal, as set forth in paras 1 and 2, inter alia, urging that the impugned award and the decree and the foregoing adjudication exonerating R-2 from its liability to pay any part of the compensation, etc., is unsustainable at fact and law and has to be set aside, as such, and also that the compensation awarded is very low and hence the same has to be enhanced to the maximum O.P. claim of Rs. 1,00,000/-, etc.
10. In the foregoing facts and circumstances, the finding of the said Tribunal on issue No. 1, as to the culpability in respect of the Accident being laid exclusively with the said tractor and its driver as well as the other material findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned award became final and binding on all the concerned except, insofar as the same are questioned by the claimant.
11. It is vehemently urged for claimant that the respective compensation amounts awarded by the said Tribunal on different grounds or heads are very low or less and hence they have to be enhanced as well, as that, in respect of the proved fractures the Tribunal did not award separate compensation amounts, etc.
12. The findings of the said Tribunal, in para 6 of the impugned award that the claimant sustained multiple rib fracture and the fracture of left clavicle and also the fracture of left scapula as well as, dislocation of the joint became final. But, in respect thereof, the Tribunal did not award any separate compensation amount.
The same has to be awarded.
12-A. Hence, in respect of rib fracture, I am of the opinion that awarding a sum of Rs. 5,000/- will be the barest minimum. In respect of the fracture of left clavicle, I am of the opinion that, awarding a sum of Rs. 7,000/- will be just and reasonable. Similarly in respect of the fracture of left scapula and dislocation of the joint awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000/- will be just and equitable.
13. In respect of the proved permanent disability of 25 per cent and shortening of left arm by 1½ inches, as recorded in the said para 6 of the impugned award, in respect of the claimant who was in his mid-twenties, aged about 25 years and of avocation of labour, in the loading and unloading works of the tractor, the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 25,000/-.
14. However, even statutory no fault liability compensation under Sub-section (2) of Section 140 of the said Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Sub-section (1) thereof, will itself be Rs. 25,000/-.
15. When so, fault based liability compensation payable under Section 168 of the Act under which the present adjudication is being made, will arid so to say shall, be more than that amount, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
16. The finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 that the culpability is exclusively with the tractor and hence, R-1 and R-2 will be liable to pay fault based liability compensation under Section 168 of the said Act, as legally differentiated from no fault liability compensation under the said Section 140(2) of that Act.
17. So, therefore, fault based liability cannot be equated to no fault liability by awarding only Rs. 25,000/-.
18. The no fault liability, as on the date of the Accident, in respect of permanent disability is Rs. 25,000/- as by then Sub-section (2) of Section 140 of that Act was already amended by the Central Act 54 of 1994, which came into legal force on 14.11.1994, while the proved Accident had occurred on 8.5.1997.
19. Having regard to the age and long future life to be lived by the claimant and his avocation involving heavy manual and physical work, which necessarily involves indispensable usage of arms and having regard got his day-to-day activities in life and in his future life, I am of the opinion, that awarding a sum of Rs. 65,000/- in respect of that permanent disability will be just, equitable and bare minimum.
20. I am satisfied with the award of Rs. 10,000/- made by the Tribunal towards medicines and treatment.
21. In respect of the pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000/-which in my opinion should be made Rs. 7,500 to be just compensation.
22. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of earning capacity which in my opinion should be made Rs. 10,000/- to be just compensation.
23. Hence, in respect of the Accident and the consequences thereof, the claimant will be entitled to the sum total of the monies arrived at in the foregoing paras, which comes to Rs. 1,19,500/-. However, maximum O.R claim is only Rs. 1,00,000/-. Hence the award has to be confirmed to this maximum O.P. claim.
24. The said Tribunal exonerated R-2 Insurance Company from its liability to pay any compensation, etc., notwithstanding the existence of insurance policy exhibited as Exh. B-1, on the ground that the driver of the said tractor at the relevant time was not having valid driving licence and the transfer of the vehicle was not informed to the Insurance Company. However, it is basic because the transfer of the vehicle is not informed to R-2, that by itself cannot under law exonerate R-2 from its liability at all.
25. The driving licence of the driver of the said tractor at the relevant time was exhibited as Exh. B-2. It discloses that as on that date the driver was holding driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle, but not heavy motor vehicle.
26. But, however, that by itself cannot ipso facto exonerate R-2 from its liability to pay any compensation especially in view of the existence of Exh. B-1 policy and in view of the legal position postulated by the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh , which applies to the case on hand, because the proved Accident occurred on 8.5.1997, i.e., long after amendment of the said Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the said Central Act. 54 of 1994, which came into legal force on 14.11.1994.
27. The learned Counsel for the claimant also relied upon a case in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla , in respect of renewing driving licence, etc.
28. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent No. 2 is not liable to pay any compensation, etc., is erroneous and unsustainable at law and hence is liable to be set aside in toto and hence R-2 has to be made liable to pay the compensation, etc., jointly and severally with R-1 and, hence, the same is hereby adjudged Accordingly.
29. Hence, the award and the decree have to be modified Accordingly as set forth in paras 23 and 28, supra and, as is being done hereunder.
30. Hence, the High Court doth hereby adjudicate upon the civil misc. appeal as under:
Modifying the now impugned award and the decree set forth in para 2, supra, as under-
(a) enhancing the total compensation awarded thereby from Rs. 45,000/-to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), with full costs thereon;
(b) reducing the rate of interest on the original compensation of Rs. 45,000/- from 12 per cent per annum to 9″per cent per annum from January, 2001 till actual realization thereof; and
(c) R-2 is liable to pay the monies covered by Clauses (a) to (c), supra, jointly and severally with R-1.