Telangana High Court
Manga Suresh vs Mohammed Rafeeque Anr on 21 January, 2022
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
M.A.C.M.A.No.416 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
Dispute in this appeal is the quantum of amount
awarded as compensation by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Adilabad in M.V.O.P.No.534 of 2006 through Award
dated 09.01.2012.
2. The aggrieved is the claimant. Heard and gave anxious
consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant/claimant as well as the learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.2/insurance company.
3. Having regard to the disputed fact, the short point that
falls for consideration is:
Whether there exists any infirmity in the Award of the
Tribunal in holding that the appellant/claimant is
entitled to Rs.28,500/- only as compensation as
against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/- and if so, to what
amount the appellant is entitled to.
4. The appellant/claimant is a boy aged 12 years as on the
date of accident. On the ground that he sustained grievous
injuries due to the accident and became permanently disabled
and that, lot of amount was spent for medical expenditure, a
sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was claimed as compensation. However,
the Tribunal expressing its opinion that the aspect of
disability is not established and medical expenditure is also
not proved, held that the claimant is entitled to Rs.28,500/-
only.
2 Dr.CSL , J
MACMA.No.416 of 2016
5. Arguing that the claim of Rs.1,50,000/- is justifiable,
the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that
the claimant sustained one grievous injury and two simple
injuries and he took treatment at Yashoda Hospital,
Hyderabad and incurred more than Rs.40,000/- towards
medical expenses and that the same is deposed by P.W-1, but
without considering the nature of injuries sustained by the
claimant and the treatment that was given to him and further,
without observing the fact that the claimant became
permanently disabled, the Tribunal awarded a paltry sum as
compensation which is highly unjustifiable.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2/insurance company submitted that the
father of the claimant is working as Police Constable and he
got reimbursement of the medical expenses and only for that
reason, no medical bills were filed by the claimant before the
Tribunal and furthermore, no evidence was produced to show
that the claimant became permanently disabled and
considering all these factors, the Tribunal awarded just sum
as compensation and therefore, the appeal is not
maintainable.
7. A perusal of the Award of the Tribunal reveals that the
Tribunal awarded compensation under the following heads:
1. For grievous injury --- Rs.20,000/-
2. For knee injury --- Rs.2,000/-
3 Dr.CSL , J
MACMA.No.416 of 2016
3. Bleeding from nose --- Rs.2,000/-
4. Attendant charges --- Rs.2,000/-
5. Extra-nourishment --- Rs.2,000/-
6. Transportation charges --- Rs.500/-
-------------
Total: Rs.28,500/-
------------
8. The above sum granted by the Tribunal is assailed by
the claimant in this appeal.
9. Record discloses that the father of the claimant was
examined as P.W-1 and the claimant produced attested copy
of Injury certificate issued by the Government Hospital,
Nirmal, which was marked as Ex.A-2, and the Discharge
Summary issued by Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, which was
marked as Ex.A-6. However, the claimant did not take care to
establish the genuineness of the said documents produced.
The evidence of P.W-1 is that immediately after the accident,
his son was shifted to Government Hospital, Nirmal and after
first aid, he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad and
there, he took treatment as inpatient from 02.02.2006 to
10.02.2006 and several clinical tests were conducted and he
also underwent a surgery on 10.02.2006 for the head injury
and even after discharge, there was regular follow up
treatment and a sum of Rs.40,000/- was incurred for
treatment and Rs.15,000/- towards transportation charges.
4 Dr.CSL , J
MACMA.No.416 of 2016
P.W-1 further deposed that the claimant was in complete bed
rest for a period of six months, as per the advice of doctors,
and therefore, he lost one academic year of study and he is
experiencing pain at the injury sites and due to the injuries
sustained in the accident, he became permanently disabled.
P.W-1 during the course of cross-examination, deposed that
he was working as Constable at Nirmal Town Police Station as
on the date of accident. He stated that he is a member of
Aarogya Bhadratha Scheme and his wife and children are also
covered under the said Scheme. However, he stated that the
medical expenses incurred for the treatment of the claimant
was not reimbursed under the said Scheme. He further stated
that he has not filed any documentary proof to show that a
sum of Rs.15,000/- was incurred towards transportation
charges.
10. As earlier discussed, the claimant has not made any
effort to establish the relevant facts i.e., the medical
expenditure incurred and the aspect of his disability.
However, basing on the facts of the case and the
circumstances projected, more particularly in the light of the
evidence produced which can be taken into consideration,
this Court is of the view that the appellant/claimant ought to
have been awarded compensation as under:
Sl. Amount to which
the claimant is
No. Head entitled to
5 Dr.CSL , J
MACMA.No.416 of 2016
1. Compensation for pain and Rs.25,000/-
suffering for one grievous injury
2. Compensation for pain and Rs.10,000/-
suffering for two simple injuries
3. Attendant charges Rs.5,000/-
4. Extra-nourishment Rs.2,000/-
5. Transportation charges Rs.2,000/-
Total: Rs.44,000/-
11. Thus, the amount of compensation which the appellant
is entitled to and which can be termed as just compensation,
based on the evidence produced, is Rs.44,000/-. Therefore,
this Court considers it desirable to allow the appeal in part.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount
of compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Adilabad in M.V.O.P.No.534 of 2006 through Award
dated 09.01.2012 is enhanced from Rs.28,500/- to
Rs.44,000/- (Rupees Forty four thousand only). The Award of
the Tribunal in all other aspects holds good. Respondent No.2
is directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation
within a period of one month. The enhanced amount carries
the same interest as indicated by the Tribunal from the date
of the Claim Petition till the date of deposit.
13. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
6 Dr.CSL , J
MACMA.No.416 of 2016
_______________________________________
Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
21.01.2022
dr
