THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 2128 of 2007
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant
preferred this appeal against the order and decree, dated 04.05.2007,
passed in O.P.No.700 of 2005 on the file of the Special Judge for trial
of offences of SCs & STs (POA) Act, Karimnagar.
The brief facts of the case are that on 07-07-2004 at 17:30 hours,
while the claimant was proceeding from N.T.R. Chowrastha to
market road in Choppadandi Village on his Bajaj motorcycle bearing
No. AP-15-M-6400, the auto trolley, which was proceeding ahead of
the motorcycle and driven at high speed in rash and negligent
manner, took a sudden turn towards the right side without giving
any signals, due to which, the appellant-claimant, who was going
behind the auto, dashed; thereby, he fell down and sustained
multiple injuries. He was shifted to Bhanu Orthopedic Home,
Karimnagar and thereafter on 08.07.2004 he was shifted to Kamineni
Hospital, Hyderabad, wherein he was treated as inpatient for three
days. Again, he was admitted in the said hospital on 25.08.2004 and
was discharged on 27.08.2004. He was bedridden for a period of
three months. Therefore, under various heads, he has claimed a
sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation.
Considering the claim of the appellant and the counter filed
by the Insurance Company, respondent No. 2 herein, the learned
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to 2
the rash and negligent driving by the respondent No. 1 herein, who
is driver-cum-owner of the vehicle and also due to the negligence on
the part of the claimant, as the accident had occurred in the middle
of the road and thereby fixed the contributory negligence on the part
of the claimant at 25% and the remaining 75% on the part of the
driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle, and has granted (i)
Rs.3,000/- towards loss of earnings; (ii) Rs.1,000/- towards
transportation charges; (iii) Rs.500/- towards extra nourishment; (iv)
Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses; (v) Rs.7,500/- towards pain
and suffering; and (vi) Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and
special cloths, which comes to Rs.42,000/- and after deducting 25%
therefrom towards the contributory negligence on the part of the
claimant, Rs.31,500/- was granted towards net compensation
payable to the claimant with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of O.P. till the date of realization. Dissatisfied with the
quantum of compensation, the appellant-claimant filed the present
appeal seeking enhancement of the same.
Heard both sides.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that there is negligence on
the part of the appellant to the extent of 25% without considering the
evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 5 and Exs.A.1 to A.12. Although the
sketch map, Ex.B.3 was not proved by the Insurance Company, the
learned Tribunal has solely relied on the same in coming to the 3
conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the claimant at
25%. The learned Tribunal has erred in restricting the amount of
Rs.30,000/- to Rs.20,000/- towards medical bills. Under the head of
extra nourishment, the learned Tribunal has granted a meagre
amount of Rs.500/-. Even, under the head of loss of earnings, the
learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.40,000/- instead of
Rs.10,000/- and so also, under the head of Transportation, the
Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.5,000/-.
On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent No. 2 sought to sustain the order of the
learned Tribunal contending that basing on the evidence adduced
by the parties more particularly, Ex.B.3 sketch map, the Tribunal
came to the conclusion that there was negligence of both the drivers
in the ratio of 75% and 25%. It is contended that the amount of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and therefore,
the same needs no interference by this Court.
The point that arises for consideration is whether the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the learned Tribunal has erred in fixing the
contributory negligence on the part of the claimant at 25%, at para
No. 10, the Tribunal has categorically held as under:- 4
"10...On perusing Ex.B-3, it shows that both the auto and motorcycle were going towards the place called as 'beet market road' and road is very wide and the auto was going on the left side and the motor cycle was going on the right side. The accident occurred in the centre of the road. This clearly shows that the petitioner trying to over take the auto and while so, the auto was suddenly taken turn. In these circumstances by considering the sketch and the manner of the accident, it is held that there is negligence on the part of the auto to the extent of 75% and on the part of the motorcycle to the extent of 25% and the accident occurred due to negligence of both the drivers in the ratio of 75% and 25%..."
Thus, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is based on
appreciation of evidence brought on record. This Court sees no
reason to interfere with the said finding and the same is not
interfered with.
Coming to the quantum of compensation, admittedly, the
claimant has suffered fracture to his leg and was treated at Kamineni
Hospital, Hyderabad as inpatient twice. Even the Doctor's
examination report shows that the claimant required rest for six
weeks. For treatment twice at Hyderabad, he must have incurred
certain charges towards transportation from Karimnagar to
Hyderabad. Considering the evidence of P.W.3, a servant engaged
by claimant, and Ex.A.11 issued by him showing that he received
Rs.1,000/- per month from the claimant, the amount of Rs.3,000/-
granted towards loss of earnings is too meagre. So also, towards
extra nourishment, the amount of Rs.500/- granted by the Tribunal
is on lower side. As regards medical bills, considering the evidence 5
adduced by the claimant, the Tribunal has rightly granted the
amount of Rs.20,000/- which needs no interference by this Court.
The amount of Rs.7,500/- granted by the Tribunal towards pain and
suffering, considering the fracture received by the claimant, needs to
be enhanced. Likewise, towards loss of earning power, considering
the fact that the claimant sustained knee joint fracture, the amount of
Rs.10,000/- granted by the Tribunal also needs to be enhanced. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the
appellant is entitled to the following amount towards compensation
under various heads:
Sl. Name of Head Awarded Awarded
No. by Tribunal by this Court
Rs. Ps. Rs. Ps.
1. Loss of earnings 3,000.00 4,500.00
2. Transportation charges 1,000.00 3,000.00
3. Extra nourishment 500.00 1,500/-
4. Medical bills 20,000.00 20,000.00
5. Pain and suffering 7,500.00 10,000.00
6. Loss of earning power, mental 10,000.00 20,000.00
agony etc.
Total gross compensation 42,000.00 59,000.00
After deducting 25% towards 31,500.00 44,250.00
contributory negligence on the
part of the claimant, the net
total compensation is
In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by enhancing
the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.31,500/- to Rs.44,250/-. The enhanced amount shall carry
interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of order passed by the Tribunal till 6
the date of realization, payable by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and
severally. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
03.01.2022 tsr 7
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 2128 of 2007
DATE: 03-01-2022
