Telangana High Court
Bontha Linganna vs Apsrtc, Rep.By Its Md, ... on 25 November, 2021
Bench: N.Tukaramji
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
M.A.C.M.A.No.942 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied by the quantum of awarded compensation, the
claimant / petitioner filed this Appeal against the decree and judgment
dt.06.01.2011 in MVOP.No.775 of 2006 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge) (F.T.C.),
Nizamabad.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1994 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest
at 24% per annum on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor
accident on 17.04.2006.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.04.2006 when the
appellant / claimant was proceeding on his motor-cycle bearing
Registration No.AP-25-B-9472 (the motor-cycle), and while
approaching Nallur Village on NH-7, an APSRTC Bus bearing
No.AP-11-Z-3240 of the Warangal Depot (the bus) was driven by its
driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and as the driver lost
control over the bus, it went on the wrong side of the road and dashed
the motor-cycle as a result the appellant / claimant slumped and the bus
ran over him causing severe and multiple fracture injuries all over his
body. Immediately, the appellant / claimant was shifted to Shashank
NTR,J
::2:: macma_942_2011
Hospital, Nizamabad where he underwent treatment as in-patient from
17.04.2006 to 27.04.2006 and later continued as out-patient and incurred
expenditure of Rs.2 lakhs. However, he is suffering permanent
disability. Thus, filed the petition for compensation.
4. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, awarded
Rs.77,069/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till date
of realization, and held both the respondents liable to pay compensation.
5. Aggrieved by the amount awarded, the present Appeal is filed
contending that the Tribunal failed to grant compensation towards, (i)
Loss of Earnings; (ii) Future Medical Expenses, (iii) Future Medical
expenditure; (iv) Attendant Charges and (v) Medical Expenses, and that
the amounts under these heads shall be enhanced.
6. The insurer / respondent pleaded that the Tribunal had rightly
appraised the claim and properly awarded the compensation amounts
and in this Appeal no valid ground is made out to consider otherwise.
7. In these contesting pleas, the point arises for determination is
"whether the compensation awarded to the appellant / petitioner is just
and proper?".
8. The Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- towards two fracture injuries
and Rs.5,000/- towards 'Pain and Suffering'; Rs.35,069/- towards
Medical Expenditure; Rs.5,000/- for 'extra nourishment'; and Rs.2,000/-
towards 'transportation charges', totaling to Rs.77,069/-.
NTR,J
::3:: macma_942_2011
9. To note, neither special nor general damages prescribe damages
for the injuries. But the damages are awarded for pain and suffering and
trauma as a consequence of the injuries. In the present case,
compensation is granted for the injuries and pain and suffering
separately. Howsoever, even if the amounts granted under these two
heads, viz., Rs.35,000/-, the compensation under this head is found
minimal, in the nature of injuries and treatment undergone by the
appellant / petitioner. Thus, Rs.50,000/- is granted towards 'Pain and
Sufferings'.
10. The appellant / claimant filed Medical Bills / Ex.A.5 only for
Rs.35,069/-. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of treating
Doctor / PW.2 rightly granted the total amounts reflected in the bills.
However, this amount is rounded off to Rs.35,100/-. Further, the
appellant / claimant claimed future medical expenses, yet no material is
placed to substantiate this averment. Hence, no amount can be granted
on this account.
11. Further, the Doctor / PW.2 in his evidence did not refer to any
physical disability of the appellant / claimant. Except the self-serving
oral plea, no evidence is on record. Further, at least, there is no
explanation what is the physical disability and how it is affecting the
activities of avocation and earning capacity. Therefore, no amount can
be granted for 'loss of earnings' due to disability. Thus, the conclusion
of the Tribunal on this aspect is justified.
NTR,J
::4:: macma_942_2011
12. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, awarded Rs.2,000/- towards Transportation Charges, and this
amount is found on the lower side. Therefore, considering the statement
that the appellant / claimant undergone treatment as in-patient and out-
patient, Rs.5,000/- is granted towards transportation charges.
13. That apart, during the period of treatment, the necessity of
attendants can be believed. Though a person is not specifically
appointed, the family members of the appellant / petitioner would have
been extended their support by making out some time from their
avocations. In this view, Rs.5,000/- is awarded for 'attendant charges'.
14. Further, the amount of Rs.5,000/- granted towards 'extra
nourishment' is maintained.
15. Accordingly, the compensation amounts awarded by the Tribunal
is modified in the following terms, viz.,
(1) Pain and Sufferings : Rs.50,000.00
(2) Medical expenditure : Rs.35,100.00
(2) Transportation Charges : Rs.5,000.00
(3) Attendant Charges : Rs.5,000.00
(4) Extra nourishment : Rs.5,000.00
=================
TOTAL : Rs.1,00,100.00
=================
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as follows :
NTR,J
::5:: macma_942_2011
(i) the appellant / claimant is awarded compensation of
Rs.1,00,100/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition
till the date of realization;
(ii) the 1st and 2nd respondents are jointly and severally liable to
pay the compensation and directed to deposit the awarded
compensation within one month;
(iii) after the deposit, the appellant / claimant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount; and
(iv) rest of the appellant / claimant's claim is dismissed.
17. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Appeal,
shall stand closed.
______________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 25.11.2021
Ndr
