Gaddam Nagendra vs B. Venkatarathnam And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 452 AP

                 THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

                            MACMA.No.623 of 2006
                                  (Through virtual mode)



JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred against the order dated 03.12.2005 passed in

O.P.No.69 of 1999 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur at

Gooty, whereby the appellant who is the claimant before the Tribunal, was

awarded compensation of Rs.28,000/-.

2. The claimant filed petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-

alleging that he received injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 13.06.1998

while he was going on a cycle and hit by a speeding lorry driven negligently and

he was treated for four months in hospitals and the cycle was totally damaged.

3. The first respondent who is the owner of the lorry remained ex parte

and the second respondent which is the insurance company denied negligence

of the driver and its liability on the ground that the driver had no valid driving

licence at that relevant time. Further it questioned the maintainability of the

petition for non-joinder of necessary party ie. driver. Insurance Company

admitted subsistence of a valid policy issued by it to the lorry.

4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that the driver was

negligent and rash due to which the accident in which the petitioner sustained

injuries occurred.

5. Having further found that the injured was first taken to the

Government Hospital at Tadipatri and later to the Government hospital at

Anantapur where he was treated for four months as surgery was done for

draining urine and another surgery was done to pelvis and major operation for

urethral rupture by giving 6 units of blood, however the injuries were grievous,

but the injured could attend normal work after operation, and further that the

injured was also treated for fracture of pelvis with perennial injury, the

Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- for injuries suffered; Rs.3,000/- for medical

expenses and Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering.

6. Having aggrieved by the same, this appeal was filed stating 1) that

the Tribunal failed to consider that the claimant was earning Rs.2,000/- per

month as cooli in awarding compensation; 2) that the Tribunal awarded a

meagre amount of Rs.20,000/- for all injuries taking as a unit; 3) that medical

bills worth for Rs.4,270/- under Ex.A.5 were ignored in awarding compensation;

4) that the Tribunal ought to have considered the huge expenses incurred and

the prolonged treatment for four months apart from the physical and

psychological suffering of the claimant; 5) that the Tribunal failed to award

compensation for attendant changes and transportation charges; and 6) that

the claimant is not in normal position to perform day to day functions due to

multiple injuries and fractures and could not eke out his livelihood.

7. Heard Sri Kuncheam Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the

appellant/injured and Sri N.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the insurance

company. The first respondent, owner of the lorry, is shown as not necessary

party as he remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal

erroneously considered all injuries as one unit and failed to consider the

grievous injuries and also failed to award reasonable compensation for medical

expenses, attendant charges, transportation charges and extra nourishment

charges. Learned counsel for the insurance company opposed any further hike

in the amount of compensation beyond what was awarded by the Tribunal.

9. It is settled law that irrespective of the amount of compensation and

the heads under which compensation is claimed, it is for the Tribunal to award

just and reasonable compensation.

10. In view of the above proposition, if the facts in the present case are

examined, the contention of the appellant appears to be just as he is also

entitled for a reasonable amount to meet the expenses for attendant charges,

transportation charges and also for loss of earnings for a certain period, atleast

during which he was confined to hospital and for a short period thereafter. In

this case, as the claimant was treated in the hospital, admittedly, for a period

of four months and underwent different surgeries, he is entitled to an amount

of Rs.5,000/- atleast for attendant charges; for Rs.5,000/- for transportation

charges; and Rs.7,500/- for loss of earnings for a minimum period of five

months @ Rs.1,500/- per month on a minimum scale as a cooli during the

relevant period. Further, though the claimant produced medical bill worth

Rs.4,270/-, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.3,000/- without assigning any reasons

as to why it reduced the amount of expenses established towards medical

expenses. As such, he is also entitled to compensation for Rs.1,270/- as well

under the said head. Thus, all put together, he is entitled to a further sum of

Rs.18,770/- (Eighteen thousand seven hundred and seventy only) in addition to

the amount of compensation already awarded by the Tribunal.

11. The rest of the terms like rate at which and period for which interest

is payable as directed by the Tribunal remain intact even in relation to the

enhanced amount of compensation. Since long time elapsed, the claimant can

be permitted to withdraw the entire amount on deposit.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the claimant is

awarded a total compensation of Rs.46,770/- (forty six thousand seven hundred

and seventy only) which includes Rs.28,000/- (twenty eight thousand only)

awarded by the Tribunal, with future simple interest at 7.5% per annum from

the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit. The respondents are

directed to deposit within one month before the Tribunal the entire amount

due as per this award, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any.

The rest of the claim is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________ B.S.Bhanumathi, J Dt.31.01.2022 PNV