1 RRN, J
MACMA No.2349 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No. 2349 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This M.A.C.M.A. is preferred by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the Order and decree dt.13.03.2014 in M.V.O.P No.988 of 2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- Cum-II Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, (for short "the Tribunal").
2. Heard Sri Azar Sravan Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner and Sri. Katta Laxmi Prasad, learned Counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.
3. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. The case of the petitioner is that on 19.06.2008 at about 5.30 p.m. near the bridge of Akula Kondoor village, the 1st respondent drove the motorcycle bearing No.AP-25P-8288 in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the motorcycle turned turtle and the petitioner travelled on the motorcycle as a pillion rider fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Based on the complaint, Police Nizamabad Rural registered a case in Crime No.216 of 2008 and after investigation, charge-sheeted the 1st respondent for 2 RRN, J MACMA No.2349 of 2014 causing grievous injuries to the petitioner by driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently and at excessive speed. The petitioner was shifted to Amrutha Laxmi Multi Specialty Hospital, Nizamabad, whereat Dr. Jaya Prakash, Orthopedic Surgeon, treated him as inpatient from 19.06.2008 to 07/07/2008. He underwent the operation. He incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. As such, he filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.
5. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a counter denying the petition allegations. Respondent No.2 mainly contended that the no accident occurred with the said motorcycle and the petitioner in collusion with the 1st respondent involved the motorcycle. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. To prove his case, the petitioner examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Ex.A1 to A12, Ex.X1 and X2. On behalf of respondent No.2, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 to B4 got marked.
7. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal awarded Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the present appeal by the petitioner for enhancement of compensation.
3 RRN, J
MACMA No.2349 of 2014
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has
vehemently argued that the Tribunal erred in not appreciating the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Ex.A3 to A10 and Ex.A12 and granted meagre compensation. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and no interference by this Court is required and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. A perusal of the record shows that PW.2 who treated the petitioner deposed that on 19.06.2008 he examined the petitioner and found the following injuries:
1) Laceration over chin, 3x2 cm, X-Ray shows fracture mandible.
2) Deformity left thumb, X-Ray shows dislocation of metacarpo phalangel joint of thumb.
3) Bleeding nose, CT scan of brain shows fracture of nasal bones.
4) Bilateral red eyes, CT scan shows fracture lateral walls of both orbits, and
5) Swelling over face, CT scan shows fracture bilateral maxilla and zygomatic bones.
He treated the petitioner as inpatient from 19.06.2008 to 03.07.2008 along with dental, Ophthalmic and ENT surgeons.
11. The petitioner filed medical bills to the tune of Rs.74,934/-. But, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.15,000/- as per 4 RRN, J MACMA No.2349 of 2014 the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the Second Schedule is now repealed, this Court is inclined to award Rs.74,934/- towards medical expenses.
12. The Tribunal rightly took the annual income of the petitioner at Rs.40,000/- and awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of earnings. The medical record shows that the petitioner took treatment up to 14.10.2008, and also awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. No interference is required in this regard.
13. The Tribunal failed to award transportation charges, attendant charges and extra-nourishment. Hence, this Court is inclined to award Rs.20,000/- towards the same.
14. In all, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.1,39,934/- (Rs. One lakh, thirty nine thousand, nine hundred and thirty four only) towards compensation.
15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.1,39,934/- (Rs. One lakh, thirty nine thousand, nine hundred and thirty four only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed. Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation to the petitioner.
5 RRN, J
MACMA No.2349 of 2014
The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J ______day of March, 2023 BDR