Telangana High Court
Putti Narsimloo vs Vattepu Kistaiah And Another on 1 July, 2022
Bench: Sambasivarao Naidu
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
M.A.C.M.A.NO.156 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the unsatisfied petitioner in
M.V.O.P.No.719 of 2013. The appeal is against the award dated
31-08-2017, where under, the petition filed by the appellant herein
was partly allowed awarding a sum of Rs.4,35,944/- with costs and
interest @ 7.5% per annum.
2. This appeal is filed mainly on the ground that the Court
below did not award adequate compensation for the injuries
caused to the appellant herein. The Court below did not consider
the contention of the appellant that he was hale and healthy at the
time of accident. He was 34 years and earning Rs.9,225/- per
month by working as Secretary in P.A.C.S. at Ramayampet.
Inspite of the fact, he has produced salary certificate which is
marked as Ex.A12. The Court below did not add appropriate
amount towards loss of earning by taking disability assessed at
30%, thereby, sought for enhancement of the compensation.
3. The above said motor vehicle O.P. has been filed by
the appellant herein for Rs.8,00,000/-. According to the averments
made in the petition, it was his case that on 18-06-2013, while he
2 SSRN,J
MACMA No.156 of 2018
along with his friend proceeded to his house from Agriculture
Market Yard from Ramayampet, the rider of a motor-bike dashed
the petitioner from his behind and caused communited compound
fracture to both bones of left leg, head injury, injuries on right
foot, right hand and other parts of the body. The appellant herein
has claimed that he has undergone surgery and spent
Rs.4,00,000/- for treatment. He need to spend another
Rs.1,00,000/- for future treatment. Therefore, he sought for
Rs.8,00,000/- to compensate the permanent disability and his loss
of earning capacity. The owner of the bike remained ex parte, but
the insurance company contested the petition by disputing the
material averments made in the petition. The Court below
awarded Rs.4,35,944/-, but the appellant was not satisfied with
the said amount and filed the present appeal for enhancement of
the compensation.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. Now the point for consideration is :
Whether the Court below failed to award adequate amount of
compensation, if so, whether the appellant is entitled to some
more amount as prayed for?
3 SSRN,J
MACMA No.156 of 2018
6. As could be seen from the award which is challenged in
the present appeal, it is very clear that the petitioner received
grievous injuries in the above referred road accident. He was
treated by PW.2 and according to the evidence of PW.2, the
respondent/claimant received fracture to both bones of the left leg
and one head injury. He was treated as in-patient from
19-06-2013 to 01-07-2013. He has undergone a surgery. It
seems Ex.A2/the wound certificate was not issued by PW.2 but it
was issued by a Private Hospital. PW.3 is another medical officer,
who has examined the respondent/claimant on 15-07-2014 i.e.,
about more than one year after the above said accident, assessed
the disability as 30%. He is not the treated Doctor of the
respondent/claimant. Therefore, the Court below did not accept
the contention of respondent about the alleged disability. The
Court below awarded Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering and
Rs.15,000/- towards transportation. The Court having accepted
the evidence of PW.2 awarded an amount of Rs.2,31,944/-
towards medical expenditure, another sum of Rs.1,44,000/- was
awarded towards loss of income. The Court while awarding the
above said amounts passed a reasoned order. Therefore, there are
4 SSRN,J
MACMA No.156 of 2018
no grounds to enhance the compensation as such, the appeal is
liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed.
No costs.
__________________________
JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
Date: 01.07.2022
PLV
5 SSRN,J
MACMA No.156 of 2018
