Telangana High Court
Nookapangu Bhagyavathi vs Fateh Singh And 2 Ors on 29 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A.No.1085 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the injured questioning the order and decree, dated 18.06.2010 in O.P.No.1293 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, the Tribunal).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12.09.2007. It is stated that on the fateful day, while the claimant was walking on Gudur to Miryalaguda on extreme left side and when she reached opposite to Srikar Rice Mill at 2 KS,J Macma_1085_2016 the outskirts of Gudur village, at about 06:00 a.m., one lorry bearing No. HR 55 E 4098, owned by respondent No. 2, insured with respondent No. 3, being driven by its driver- respondent No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the claimant. As a result, the claimant sustained fractures on her right hand, right leg, fracture of nasal bone and grievous injuries to head, forehead and other multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, she was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Miryalaguda. Thereafter, she took treatment for twenty (20) days as inpatient in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. Later, she took treatment at Sri Sai Krishna Specialty Hospital, East Maredpally, Secunderabad. According to the claimant, she was hale and healthy, aged 53 years and earning Rs.3,000/- per month as agriculturist. Due to the said injuries, she sustained permanent disability and lost his future earnings. Thus, he laid the claim seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against the respondents. 3
KS,J Macma_1085_2016
4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex parte and whereas respondent No. 3 filed counter denying petition averments, disputing the manner of accident, nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, avocation and income of the claimant and further contended that the liability of the Insurance Company is as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It is lastly contended that the claim is exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the claimant sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.HR 56 E 4098?
2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation and from whom?
3. To what relief?4
KS,J Macma_1085_2016
6. In order to prove the issues, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked on behalf of the claimant. On behalf of respondents, none were examined but Ex.B.1 was marked.
7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal has partly allowed the O.P. and awarded an amount of Rs.17,000/- towards compensation to the claimant along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment or realization against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 jointly and severally.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record.
5
KS,J Macma_1085_2016
9. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has submitted that although the claimant, by way of medical evidence i.e. Ex.A.2, certified copy of medical certificate; Ex.A.4, bunch of medical bills and prescriptions and Ex.A.5, discharge card issued by Sri Sai Krishna Specialty Hospital, Secunderabad, sufficiently established that the claimant sustained fractures on right hand, fracture of right leg, fracture of nasal bone and grievous injury on forehead, the Tribunal has awarded meagre amount and further not awarded any amount towards the grievous injuries.
10. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal contending that considering the manner of accident and the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court. 6
KS,J Macma_1085_2016
11. As regards the manner of accident, the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PW. 1, coupled with the documentary evidence available on record i.e., Exs.A.1, FIR & A.3, Charge Sheet, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.HR 55 E 4098. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal which are based on appreciation of evidence in proper perspective. Thus, the only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, a perusal of medical record would reveal that the claimant sustained five injuries i.e., sutured laceration over the ruit, nose and forehead; laceration of upper lip and nose; sutured laceration of right ankle; laceration of forearm and developed flop necrosis of right forearm and right foot of the avulsed skin flap. Considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded 7 KS,J Macma_1085_2016 Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenditure; Rs.10,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 5) towards five injuries and Rs.2,000/- towards pain and suffering, which appears to be meagre and needs to be enhanced. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimant, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards grievous injury and future medical expenses. Hence, this Court is inclined to award Rs.5,000/- each to five injuries which in total works out to Rs.25,000/-; Rs.39,000/- towards medical expenditure; Rs.20,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment, attendant charges; Rs.8,000/- loss of earnings; Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. Thus, in all the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,62,000/-.
13. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.17,000/- to Rs.1,62,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of 8 KS,J Macma_1085_2016 petition till the date of realization to be payable by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 jointly and severally. The amount shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE K. SURENDER 29.02.2024 mmr