Mavuri Shankar vs The Managing Direcoor,
2022 Latest Caselaw 6368 Tel

       THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                      M.A.C.M.A.No.3450 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

The claimant preferred this appeal under Section 173 of

Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order and decree, dated

26.07.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.293 of 2010 on the file of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at

Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are

referred to as per their array before the tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed a petition

under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming

compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in

the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.09.2007. It is

stated that on 18.09.2007, while the claimant was discharging

duties as conductor in the offending bus bearing No. AP 28Z 1040,

owned by the respondents-RTC, when the bus reached in front of

IBP Petrol Pump, Bibipur Thanda, the driver of the bus while

overtaking a vehicle, dashed a road side neem tree, as a result of

which, he had sustained multiple injuries. According to him,

towards treatment and medicines, he had incurred an amount of

MGP, J Macma_3450_2014

Rs.60,000/- and that he suffered permanent disability. Therefore,

he laid the claim for Rs.2.00 lakhs against the respondents-RTC

towards compensation under different heads.

4. Considering the claim, counter filed by the respondents and

also the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, the

tribunal allowed the O.P. in part awarding a sum of Rs.55,000/-

towards compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum, to be paid

by the respondents jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the

claimant filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation.

5. Heard both sides and perused the record.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that though

the claimant has suffered grievous injury and underwent surgery

for the fracture of both bones of left fore arm for fixation of

implants, the tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards pain and

suffering and trauma; Rs.20,000/- towards medical, hospital

expenses, extra nourishment and attendant charges and

Rs.5,000/- for implants costs which are meagre and needs

enhancement. It is contended that the tribunal did not award any

MGP, J Macma_3450_2014

amounts under the head of injuries even though the fracture

injuries received by the claimant are grievous in nature.

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-

RTC has submitted considering the nature of injuries and the

treatment period the Tribunal has awarded just compensation,

which needs no interference by this Court.

8. With regard to the manner in which the accident took place,

a perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that although the

claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles

Act, the Tribunal has framed issue No.1 as to whether the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver

of crime vehicle, to which the tribunal after considering the

evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence i.e.,

Ex.A1, FIR and Ex.A2, charge sheet, has categorically observed

that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

the crime vehicle by its driver and has answered the issue in

favour of the claimant and against the respondent. Therefore, I see

no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

crime vehicle by its driver. Basing on the findings on issue No.1,

MGP, J Macma_3450_2014

the tribunal has proceeded to award the compensation treating the

claim petition as was filed under Section 166 of the Act.

9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the

claimant was admitted as inpatient on 18.09.2007, he had

underwent major operation on 26.09.2007 and was discharged on

01.10.2007. Ex.A.3, Injury Certificate, discloses that the claimant

suffered fracture of both bones of left fore arm. Ex.A.3 is

substantiated with the evidence of the doctor, P.W.2 who also

deposed that to heal the fracture, implants were fixed. Considering

the said medical evidence, though the tribunal has rightly awarded

Rs.30,000/- towards pain, suffering and trauma, but did not

justify in not awarding any amount under the head of injuries.

Therefore, considering the fracture of both bones to left forearm,

this Court grants an amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head of

injuries. That apart, the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the

tribunal for implants is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. However, this

Court is not inclined to disturb the amount of Rs.20,000/-

awarded by the tribunal under the head of medicines,

transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Even

though the claimant claimed that he had suffered permanent

disability, in the absence of any evidence to that effect, the tribunal

MGP, J Macma_3450_2014

has rightly rejected the said claim. Thus, in all, the compensation

amount of Rs.55,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to

Rs.85,000/-.

10. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part enhancing the

compensation awarded by the tribunal from Rs.55,000/- to

Rs.85,000/-. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry

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

realization, payable by respondents. The amount shall be

deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order. On such deposit of compensation amount by

the respondents, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw the same

without furnishing any security. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

____________________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 02.12.2022 tsr

MGP, J Macma_3450_2014

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A.No.3450 of 2014

DATE: 02-12-2022