THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 3177 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the claimant, injured, aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 30.05.2014 passed in O.P.No.984 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, (for short, the Tribunal).
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.08.2010. It is stated that on 22.08.2010 at about 4:00 p.m., while the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.AP 28 BD 9173 as pillion rider towards Mohd. Jalal Qureshi Stone Polishing Company through flyover bridge of Tandur-Kodangal, at that time one Bolero Car bearing No.KA 32 M 8363, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle 2 MGP, J Macma_3177_2014 from opposite side, due to which, the claimant sustained grievous fracture injuries. It is further stated that immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Thandur and subsequently shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where he took treatment as inpatient. The Police, Tandur, registered a case in Crime No.153 of 2010 against the driver of the Car. Since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car, the claimant laid the claim for Rs.1,80,000/- against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the aforesaid offending Car.
4. Before the Tribunal, while the respondent No. 1 remained ex parte, respondent No. 2, Insurance Company, contested the claim denying all the averments of the claim petition including the manner in which the accident took place, nature of injuries sustained and nature of treatment undergone by the claimant and also the amount spent by him for his treatment. It is further contended that the driver of the Car was not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident. It is further contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
3
MGP, J Macma_3177_2014
5. The Tribunal, after considering the claim, counter and the evidence, both oral and documentary brought on record, has allowed the O.P. in part awarding a sum of Rs.1,05,160/- towards compensation. Seeking further enhancement of compensation, the claimant approached this Court with the present appeal.
6. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.
7. Learned Counsel for the claimant mainly submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. It is further submitted that as per the evidence available on record, the claimant has sustained fracture of shaft right femur mid third and treatment was given as ORIF C-K9 and P.W.2 also assessed the disability at 38%, but the tribunal awarded meager amount under the head of pain and suffering and also the disability sustained by the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed to enhance the compensation by considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, nature of treatment undergone by him and the disability sustained by him.
4
MGP, J Macma_3177_2014
8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has contended that considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the tribunal has rightly awarded just compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
9. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged either by the owner or by the insurer of the vehicle.
10. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is "whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and equitable"?
11. A perusal of the material on record, as per Ex.A4- discharge card issued by Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, the claimant has sustained fracture of shaft right femur mid third and treatment was given as ORIF-C K9. P.W.2, the doctor, issued Ex.A6-disability certificate stating that the claimant has suffered 38% permanent partial disability as the claimant was suffering with difficulty to walk, sitting, squatting and stiffness of right knee joint. Admittedly, the claimant has sustained 5 MGP, J Macma_3177_2014 fracture of shaft of right femur mid third and he took treatment conservatively in the form of injunctions and ORIF C-K9 was fixed. Though the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards the charges for future surgery, but awarded only Rs.7,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. As the claimant has sustained fracture to his right femur mid third and he is facing difficulty in sitting, squatting and he took treatment for a considerable period, this Court is inclined to enhance the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.25,000/-.
12. Though P.W.2, the doctor, certified that the claimant has suffered with 38% of the permanent partial disability, the claimant failed to produce any disability certificate issued by the Medical Board to show that he had sustained 38% permanent partial disability. Further as per PW2, the claimant was treated conservatively in the form of injection and POP based on previous medical records of Gandhi Hospital, where he was admitted on 23.8.2010 and discharged on 31.8.2010. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept Ex.A6, disability certificate. However, due to the fracture injury, as there was stiffness of right knee joint, this Court is inclined to enhance the 6 MGP, J Macma_3177_2014 amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of disability from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.75,000/-. The other amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of medical expenses, transportation, fracture injury, extra nourishment, future treatment and loss of earnings during the period of treatment, need no interference as they are just and reasonable. Therefore, except the said enhancement, rest of the amount awarded under the other heads awarded by the Tribunal remains unchanged.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,05,160/- to Rs.1,73,160/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the amount within months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the said amount. No order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 17.11.2022 tsr 7 MGP, J Macma_3177_2014 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. No. 3177 of 2014 DATE: 17-11-2022