HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
M.A.C.M.A.NO.156 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the unsatisfied petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.719 of 2013. The appeal is against the award dated 31-08-2017, where under, the petition filed by the appellant herein was partly allowed awarding a sum of Rs.4,35,944/- with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum.
2. This appeal is filed mainly on the ground that the Court below did not award adequate compensation for the injuries caused to the appellant herein. The Court below did not consider the contention of the appellant that he was hale and healthy at the time of accident. He was 34 years and earning Rs.9,225/- per month by working as Secretary in P.A.C.S. at Ramayampet. Inspite of the fact, he has produced salary certificate which is marked as Ex.A12. The Court below did not add appropriate amount towards loss of earning by taking disability assessed at 30%, thereby, sought for enhancement of the compensation.
3. The above said motor vehicle O.P. has been filed by the appellant herein for Rs.8,00,000/-. According to the averments made in the petition, it was his case that on 18-06-2013, while he 2 SSRN,J MACMA No.156 of 2018 along with his friend proceeded to his house from Agriculture Market Yard from Ramayampet, the rider of a motor-bike dashed the petitioner from his behind and caused communited compound fracture to both bones of left leg, head injury, injuries on right foot, right hand and other parts of the body. The appellant herein has claimed that he has undergone surgery and spent Rs.4,00,000/- for treatment. He need to spend another Rs.1,00,000/- for future treatment. Therefore, he sought for Rs.8,00,000/- to compensate the permanent disability and his loss of earning capacity. The owner of the bike remained ex parte, but the insurance company contested the petition by disputing the material averments made in the petition. The Court below awarded Rs.4,35,944/-, but the appellant was not satisfied with the said amount and filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. Now the point for consideration is :
Whether the Court below failed to award adequate amount of compensation, if so, whether the appellant is entitled to some more amount as prayed for?
3 SSRN,J
MACMA No.156 of 2018
6. As could be seen from the award which is challenged in the present appeal, it is very clear that the petitioner received grievous injuries in the above referred road accident. He was treated by PW.2 and according to the evidence of PW.2, the respondent/claimant received fracture to both bones of the left leg and one head injury. He was treated as in-patient from 19-06-2013 to 01-07-2013. He has undergone a surgery. It seems Ex.A2/the wound certificate was not issued by PW.2 but it was issued by a Private Hospital. PW.3 is another medical officer, who has examined the respondent/claimant on 15-07-2014 i.e., about more than one year after the above said accident, assessed the disability as 30%. He is not the treated Doctor of the respondent/claimant. Therefore, the Court below did not accept the contention of respondent about the alleged disability. The Court below awarded Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.15,000/- towards transportation. The Court having accepted the evidence of PW.2 awarded an amount of Rs.2,31,944/-
towards medical expenditure, another sum of Rs.1,44,000/- was awarded towards loss of income. The Court while awarding the above said amounts passed a reasoned order. Therefore, there are 4 SSRN,J MACMA No.156 of 2018 no grounds to enhance the compensation as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. No costs.
__________________________
JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
Date: 01.07.2022
PLV
5 SSRN,J
MACMA No.156 of 2018