Mohammed Aliuddin vs A. Ram Bayamma Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 6289 Tel

          THE HON'BLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

                   M.A.C.M.A. No. 736 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant, injured, aggrieved by the

judgment and decree, dated 19.04.2010 made in M.V.O.P.No. 431

of 2010 on the file of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge

(Fast Track Court) at Sangareddy (for short, the Tribunal).

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are

referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2.50 lakhs towards

compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle

accident that occurred on 14.08.2010. According to the claimant,

on 14.08.2010, while he was walking towards his mechanic shed

and reached near Nagarjuna Homes, Nizampet Road, the offending

vehicle i.e., Car bearing No. AP 13K 0045, owned by respondent

No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2, being driven by its driver

in rash and negligent manner, came behind him and dashed him

from back side. As a result, the claimant fell down and received

multiple injuries, including fracture to his left leg. He was treated

at Prime Hospital, Kukatpally, where he underwent operation and

nails were fixed in his left leg. According to him, due to the

MGP, J Macma_736_2014

accident, he was unable to attend his regular works as he

sustained permanent disability and therefore, he filed the claim

petition against the respondents seeking compensation under

different heads.

Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 & 2, contested the

claim denying the averments of the claim petition and contended

that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed for dismissal of

the claim petition.

Considering the claim, counter and the evidence, both oral

and documentary brought on record, the tribunal has allowed the

O.P. in part awarding a sum of Rs. 1,12,000/- towards

compensation. Seeking further enhancement of compensation, the

claimant approached this Court with the present appeal.

Heard both sides and perused the material available on

record.

The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in

which the accident took place has become final as the same is not

challenged either by the owner or insurer of the vehicle.

MGP, J Macma_736_2014

The short question that arises for consideration in this

appeal is "whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

just and equitable"?

The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the

appellant-claimant is that the claimant has sustained multiple

fractures to his left leg apart from other grievous injuries, that he

had underwent operation and nails were fixed even as per the

evidence of P.W.3, the doctor, who gave treatment has categorically

stated that the claimant needs second surgery for implant removal

which would cost Rs.50,000/-, but the tribunal did not award any

amounts for the future surgery. It is further contended that even

the amounts granted under the heads of pain & suffering; loss of

earnings; transportation, attendant charges and extra nourishment

are meagre and need enhancement.

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the

Insurance Company has contended that considering the nature of

injuries and length of treatment, the tribunal has adequately

awarded the compensation and therefore, the learned Standing

Counsel sought for dismissal of the appeal.

MGP, J Macma_736_2014

As seen from the record, P.W.3, Orthopaedic Surgeon of

Prime Hospital, who treated the claimant had deposed that the

claimant had undergone surgery on 17.08.2010 for closure of both

bone fractures of left leg. He has also deposed that the claimant

needs to undergo second surgery for implant removal. The record

further discloses that although there were two fractures on left leg,

the tribunal has awarded only Rs.20,000/- considering as one

fracture. Thus, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the

claimant and considering the fact that implants that were fixed in

the left leg of the claimant needs to be removed, as deposed by

P.W.3, this Court of the view that the tribunal was not justified in

not awarding any amount under this head. So also, as the

claimant had underwent major surgery and he had taken follow up

treatment, this Court is of the view that the amounts of Rs.9,000/-

awarded by the tribunal under the heads of pain and suffering;

transportation, attendant charges and extra nourishment are

meagre. Hence, considering the two fractures on left leg, the

amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the tribunal under the head of

fracture, is hereby enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. The amount

of Rs.64,465/- awarded by the tribunal under the head of

medical bills and treatment is not interfered as the same was

MGP, J Macma_736_2014

rightly awarded considering Ex.A.10 & A.13, medical bills.

However, the amount of Rs.6,000/- awarded under the heads of

extra nourishment, care and transportation charges are hereby

enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. So also, under the head of pain and

suffering, the amount of Rs.3,000/- awarded by the tribunal is

enhanced to Rs.25,000/- considering the fact that the claimant

had suffered two fractures to left leg. The amount of Rs.18,000/-

awarded by the tribunal under the head of loss of earnings during

the treatment period is not interfered with. Further, in view of the

categorical evidence of P.W.3 that the claimant has to undergo

surgery for removal of implants, this Court grants an amount of

Rs.25,000/- for removal of implant. Thus, in all, the claimant is

granted the compenation of Rs.1,92,465/- as against

Rs.1,12,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

In the result, the MACMA is allowed in part enhancing the

compensation from Rs. 1,12,000/- to Rs. 1,92,4605/-. The

enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum

from the date of order of the tribunal till the date of realization.

The respondents are directed to deposit the amount within two

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such

MGP, J Macma_736_2014

deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the said amount. No

order as to costs.

Pending Miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 01.12.2022 TSR

MGP, J Macma_736_2014

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A. No. 736 of 2014

DATE:01-12-2022