Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Claims Tribunal-Cum-V ... vs Unknown on 24 November, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.5 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. Feeling dissatisfied with the award dated 09.09.2011 in M.V.O.P.
No.302 of 2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada
(for short, 'the tribunal'), whereby the tribunal awarded
compensation amount of Rs.1,35,000/- with interest at 7.5% per
annum from the date of the petition, till realization; the claimant
preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For convenience, the parties will be referred to per their rankings
in the M.V.O.P.
3. The claimant filed a claim petition under section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for his
injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.02.2007.
4. The claimant's case is that on 24.02.2007 at about 5.30 PM, the
claimant and his brother-in-law proceeded from Vijayawada to
Gannavaram in their vehicles. They reached Nidamanuru
Village, the claimant, while taking the right side, using the right
indicator, to reach Nidamananuru with a slow movement of his
vehicle, i.e., Hero Puch bearing No. A.P. 16 N 7115, the driver of
the lorry bearing No. A.P. 16 TW 3332 (hereinafter referred to as
M.A.C.M.A. No.5 of 2012
'the offending vehicle) drove in the same rash and negligently
dashed the claimant, for which the claimant sustained grievous
injuries.
5. The first respondent remained ex-parte.
6. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-denying the material
allegations in the claim petition regarding the involvement of the
vehicle, injuries sustained by the claimant and the age and
income of the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
7. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues.
During the trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1
to A.5 on behalf of the claimant. Respondent adduced no oral
evidence but with consent marked Ex.P.1.
8. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, it
held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of the offending vehicle's driver. It fixed compensation an
amount of Rs.1,35,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum in
favour of the claimant and against the respondents.
9. Heard learned counsel for both parties.
10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant
that the tribunal failed to see that the claimant received grievous
injuries, was shifted to Government Hospital and from there
moved to V.I.N.S. hospital for better treatment. He further
M.A.C.M.A. No.5 of 2012
contends that the tribunal failed to consider the evidence of
P.W.2, who treated the claimant, wherein he testified that the
claimant sustained permanent disability and loss of hearing. The
tribunal could not consider Ex.A.12-Registration certificate of the
claimant's firm and Ex.A.13 copy of income tax particulars of the
claimant to conclude awarding loss of earnings. The tribunal
failed to grant compensation amount towards loss of earnings
Rs.30,000/-, but granted only Rs.20,000/- and the tribunal was
supposed to have granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- each under
the head future medical expenses and future earnings.
11. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurer supported the
findings and observations of the tribunal.
12. After considering the rival contentions of the learned counsel
appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the material on
record, now the point for consideration is whether the quantum
of compensation awarded by the tribunal was just and
reasonable or requires enhancement.
13. From a reading of the material on record, it can be observed that
there is no serious dispute about the occurrence of the accident
in question and the respondents' liability to pay the
compensation amount. The 2nd respondent-insurance company
has not preferred appeal or cross-objection questioning the
M.A.C.M.A. No.5 of 2012
tribunal's findings about the rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle. So also, the liability for payment of
compensation has become final.
14. To prove the injuries, P.W.2 got examined who treated the
claimant. P.W.2 deposed that the claimant suffered a fracture on
the left temporal bone, right temporal hemorrhagic contusion,
traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage and a left parietal
lacerated wound. After considering the evidence on record, the
tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards three
grievous injuries, an amount of Rs.20,000/- under the head of
loss of earnings during the treatment period, Rs.10,000/- for
simple injury, Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses and an
amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and extra
nourishment to the claimant.
15. The claimant contends that the tribunal needs to award the
proper compensation amount towards medical expenses and
should have awarded Rs.50,000/- for medical expenses. After
carefully reading the documents placed on record, more
particularly, Ex.A.9-bunch of prescriptions and Ex.A.10-bunch of
medical bills, this Court views that the tribunal rightly awarded
Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses.
M.A.C.M.A. No.5 of 2012
16. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that
the claimant sustained permanent disability. The tribunal rightly
observed that the claimant had not filed a disability certificate.
Ex.A.11-discharge summary clearly shows that the injured was
admitted to the hospital on 24.02.2007 and discharged on
05.03.2007. The tribunal's findings, it has not awarded any
amount towards attendant expenses. As such, this Court views
that the tribunal should have granted an amount of Rs.5,000/-
towards attendant charges. The evidence of P.W.2, coupled with
the discharge summary, shows that the petitioner has minimal
blood discharge from his left ear. The tribunal has not awarded
any compensation for pain and suffering for the said injury,
though it has awarded some compensation for other injuries.
This Court views that the tribunal should have granted an
amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering caused by
injury to the left ear. Tribunal observed that there is a possibility
of future loss of hearing for the claimant. Despite the said
observation, the tribunal failed to award any amount towards the
further treatment of the claimant relating to the ear injury. This
Court views that an amount of Rs.5,000/- ought to have been
awarded by the tribunal towards the treatment of injury
sustained to the ear.
M.A.C.M.A. No.5 of 2012
17. As seen from the record, though the claimant sustained three
grievous injuries and three simple injuries and was admitted to
the hospital for treatment for a considerable time, the tribunal
has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation
and extra nourishment. After considering the material on record,
this Court views that the tribunal should have granted an
additional amount of Rs.25,000/- towards transportation and
extra nourishment and also under the head nervous shock apart
from the amount of Rs.10,000/-. Altogether, apart from the
compensation awarded by the tribunal, this Court views that the
claimant is also entitled to an amount as detailed below:
Towards attendant charges Rs. 5,000/-
Towards transportation,
extra nourishment and
nervous shock Rs.25,000/-
Towards the pain and suffering
of the injury to the left ear Rs.10,000/-
Treatment for the
injury to left ear Rs. 5,000/-
---------------------------
Total: Rs.45,000/-
----------------------------
18. In a result, the appeal is partly allowed to enhance the
compensation to an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.1,35,000/- as
awarded by the tribunal (plus) Rs.45,000/- enhanced by this
Court). Respondents are directed to deposit the compensation
within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
M.A.C.M.A. No.5 of 2012
The claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation
amount by filing an appropriate application before the tribunal.
There shall be no order as to costs.
19. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
appeal shall stand closed.
---------------------------------------
T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J
Dt.24.11.2022
BV
