Nallamelli Ram Gopal Reddy, ... vs The M.D., Apddcf Ltd., Hyd Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 6290 Tel

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A. No. 741 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

Being dissatisfied with the order and decree passed by

the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-X

Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy

District in O.P.No.1172 of 2009 dated 05.11.2014, the

appellant/petitioner has filed the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the petitioner's case are that on 14.11.2009

when he was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No. AP 5 AR

6129 along with his wife and at about 9-20 p.m. they reached

near Sudershan Sweet Shop at Street No.1 and when he was

turning towards left side, a milk van bearing No. AP 10 T 3238

came from right side without observing the motorcycle and the

fruit vendor's push cart, hit his vehicle, as a result, he fell

down and sustained grievous injuries and his wife escaped

with minor injuries. Immediately he was admitted in Sri

Laxmi Nursing Home and from there he was shifted to

Niveditha Orthopedic Hospital, where he was treated as in-

MGP,J Macma_741_2015

patient for four days and that he lost his salary for two months

besides incurring medical expenses. Thus, he claimed

compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- under various heads.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; Respondent No.2

filed counter disputing the manner of accident and the nature

of injuries sustained by the petitioner. It is further contended

that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

1. Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Driver of the Milk Van bearing no. AP 10 T 3238?

Or Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor bike bearing No. AP 5 AR 6129?

Or Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the milk van bearing No. AP 10 T 3238 and as well as driver of the motor bike bearing No. AP 5 AR 6129?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, at what quantum and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

MGP,J Macma_741_2015

6. In order to prove the issues, the petitioner was examined

as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked on behalf of the

petitioner. On behalf of respondent No.2, no oral or

documentary evidence was adduced.

7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available

on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of

Rs.1,62,000/- towards compensation to the appellant-claimant

against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally along

with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of

petition till the date of realization.

8. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant

and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-

Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record.

9. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/

claimant submitted that although the claimant established the

fact that the petitioner sustained disability due to the injuries

caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager

amount.

MGP,J Macma_741_2015

10. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.2-Insurance Company submitted that the

Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, has awarded adequate compensation and

the same needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, the

learned counsel sought for dismissal of the appeal.

11. With regard to the manner of accident, there is no

dispute. However, after evaluating the evidence of PW-1

coupled with the documentary evidence produced by him, the

Tribunal rightly held that the petitioner received injuries in a

motor vehicle accident which occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the milk van bearing no. AP 10 T 3238.

12. With regard to the quantum of compensation is

concerned, according to the petitioner, he sustained fracture to

the lateral mallelous of the right ankle and Ex.A5 original

discharge card issued by Sri Laxmi Nursing Home shows that

he was admitted in Laxmi Nursing Home on 14.11.2009 and

was discharged two days thereafter. Ex.A8 is a receipt issued

by Niveditha Orthopedic Hospital for Rs.56,400/- towards

physiotherapy for three months @ Rs.600/- per day.

MGP,J Macma_741_2015

Therefore, considering the fracture injury sustained by the

petitioner, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded by the

Tribunal towards injury and pain and suffering, which is not

disturbed. Further considering Ex.A8 medical bills issued by

Niveditha Orthopedic and Fracture Clinic, an amount of

Rs.53,400/- is awarded towards medical bills and an amount

of Rs.18,000/- is awarded towards physiotherapy charges. As

per Ex.A7, the petitioner was in bed rest for four and half

months. Ex.A6 Appointment letter issued by Medapati

Technologies shows the gross salary of the petitioner as

Rs.12,000/- per month. Therefore, an amount of Rs.54,000/-

is awarded towards loss of earnings. The Tribunal awarded an

amount of Rs.15,000/- towards transportation and attendant

charges, which is very less. Therefore, an amount of

Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards extra nourishment,

transportation and attendant charges. Thus in all the

petitioner has been awarded an amount of Rs.1,95,400/-

under all counts.

13. With regard to the liability, since the accident occurred

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

offending vehicle, which was insured by respondent No.2, the

MGP,J Macma_741_2015

Tribunal rightly held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are

jointly and severally liable to pay compensation awarded to the

petitioner.

14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.1,62,000/- to Rs.1,95,400/-. The enhanced amount shall

carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date

of realization, payable by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and

severally. The amount shall be deposited within a period of

one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The

claimant shall pay the deficit court fee and on such deposit of

court fee only, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw the same

without furnishing any security. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 01.12.2022 pgp