Leggela Parvaiah, Nizamabad Dist vs Hajimiya, Nizamabad Dist Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3721 Tel

          HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

                      M.A.C.M.A.No.192 of 2015


JUDGMENT:

The claimant / petitioner / injured filed this appeal seeking

enhancement of the amounts awarded as compensation.

2. The appellant / petitioner filed the claim petition under Section

166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the Motor accident on

07.01.2004.

3. The appellant / petitioner's case in brief is that on 07.01.2004

when he was travelling in an auto bearing Registration

No.AP-25-U-6387 (the Auto) to Shetpally, and when the auto reached

near Sub-Station of Lingampet, the driver drove the auto in a rash and

negligent manner at high speed and lost control, as a result, the auto

turned turtle and he received fracture of left forearm and other multiple

injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi

Hospital, Secundeerabad and underwent treatment by incurring

expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/-. However, the injuries resulted in

permanent disability, and affected his earning capacity. Thus, filed the

petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under various heads.

4. The Tribunal, after examining the material on record awarded

Rs.41,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till NTR,J ::2:: macma_192_2015

date of realization by holding that the respondents jointly and severally

liable to pay the compensation.

5. Aggrieved by the awarded compensation amounts, the appellant /

petitioner filed the present Appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in

considering the monthly income and awarded meager amounts for 'Pain

and Sufferings', medical expenses, future medical expenses, loss of

income during treatment, attendant charges, transportation and extra

nourishment; and failed to consider the doctor's evidence about the

necessity of future surgeries.

6. The respondent / insurer pleaded that the Tribunal had properly

considered the evidence placed on record and rightly awarded the

compensation amount, and the grounds urged by the appellants /

petitioners for enhancement has no basis, thus prayed for dismissal of

the appeal.

7. The contentions of the appellant is giving rise the point for

determination as, "whether the compensation awarded to appellant /

petitioner is justifiable?".

8. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

held that compensation in personal injury cases are to be awarded under

the heads of 'Pecuniary / Special Damages' and 'Non-Pecuniary /

General Damages'. The assessment of pecuniary / special damages

involve reimbursement of the bills from the evidence. Further, generally

(2011) 1 SCC 354 NTR,J ::3:: macma_192_2015

the compensation is awarded for medical expenditure, loss of earnings

during treatment, and for pain and sufferings. In addition, where there is

specific medical evidence for loss of future earnings on account of

permanent disability and future medical expenditure, compensation will

be granted under these heads.

9. In non-pecuniary damages, lumpsum is to be determined for

damages under the heads of 'Pain and sufferings, loss of amenities and

loss of expectation of life by considering the factors such as age, nature

of injury, disability suffered by the claimant, and the effect thereof on

the future life of the injured.

10. In the light of the above settled legal position, the case facts needs

examination. The appellant / petitioner, as P.W.1, deposed about the

injuries sustained in the accident and also got examined his treating

Doctor, as PW.3, and placed Medical Certificate / Ex.A.3. This

evidence is displaying that the appellant / petitioner sustained fracture of

both bones of left forearm and three simple injuries.

11. Having regard to the fact that the appellant / petitioner suffered

fractures of both bones of fore-arm and other simple injuries and the

length of treatment granting Rs.40,000/- for 'Pain and Sufferings' is

found appropriate.

12. With regard to medical expenditure, the appellant / petitioner

deposed that he spent Rs.1,00,000/- for the treatment. But, no

corresponding bills are filed. The Doctor at Gandhi Hospital, as PW.3, NTR,J ::4:: macma_192_2015

stated that the injured / petitioner was advised for the injuries suffered.

But the doctors / PW.s 2 and 3 did not mention about the expenditure.

There is no explanation forthcoming from the appellant / petitioner as to

why the bills / receipts for the claimed medical expenditure are not filed.

In absence of any tenable material proving the expenditure, and

considering the possible incidental expenditure, granting Rs.10,000/-

towards medical expenses found reasonable. Therefore, the conclusion

of the Tribunal on this aspect is affirmed.

13. The appellant / petitioner, though contended that there is loss of

earnings during the treatment, did not place any material. The Tribunal

on considering the occupation of the appellant / petitioner as

agriculturist, and by taking the period of treatment as two (02) months,

granted Rs.5,000/-. However, having regard to the earnings of a daily

wage labourer, agriculturists and for the occupation pleaded, the monthly

income of Rs.3,500/- can safely be taken and for two months of loss of

earnings granting Rs.7,000/- is found proper.

14. During the period of treatment, the necessity of attendants can be

believed. Though a person was not specifically appointed, the family

members should have extended their support by making out time from

their avocations. Therefore, considering these aspects, Rs.7,000/- is

granted under the head of 'attendant charges'.

15. Further, considering the treatment pleaded and the possibilities,

Rs.5,000/- for transportation, and also Rs.5,000/- for 'extra nourishment'

is awarded.

                                                                         NTR,J
                                    ::5::                      macma_192_2015

16. The appellant / petitioner pleaded that the disability is affecting

his earning capacity, expenditure for further medical necessities and loss

of amenities. But, no medical evidence is placed to establish physical

disability and its consequent effect in the activities of his avocation, the

future medical treatment and the impact of the disability on the usual

course of life. Hence, this claim shall fail.

17. In effect, the following compensation amounts are awarded under

the following heads, viz., :

      (i)     Pain and Suffering        :       Rs.40,000/-

      (ii)    Medical Expenses          :       Rs.10,000/-

      (iii)   Loss of income during
              Treatment                 :       Rs.7,000/-

      (iv)    Attendant charges         :       Rs.7,000/-

      (v)     Transportation            :       Rs.5,000/-

      (vi)    Extra Nourishment:    Rs.5,000/-
                               =============
                        TOTAL   :   Rs.74,000/-
                               ==============

18. In the result, the MACMA is partly allowed by awarding

compensation of an amount of Rs.74,000/- to appellant / petitioner with

interest @ 7.5% per month from the date of petition till the date of

deposit and realization.

19. The respondents are jointly and severally held liable to pay

compensation and they are directed to deposit the amount within one

(01) month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

                                                                       NTR,J
                                 ::6::                       macma_192_2015

20. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Appeal,

shall stand closed.

_____________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J

Date: 24.11.2021 Ndr