Telangana High Court
Sable Navithri Bai vs Brij Mohan Jain And Another on 5 July, 2022
Bench: G Sri Devi
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No.854 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant aggrieved
by the order and decree, dated 30.07.2011 passed in O.P.No.586
of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(District Judge), Nizamabad (for short, the Tribunal).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been
referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for
the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. It is
stated that on 14.05.2007 the claimant, along with others, were
traveling in Van bearing No.AP-01/V-4875 from Hyderabad to
Nagpur and when they reached Rollamamda Shivar, Neredigonda
Mandal, one Lorry bearing No.HR-38/K-3029 driven by its driver
in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the
Van from opposite side, due to which the van turned, turtle and
the claimant and other inmates of the Van sustained injuries.
The claimant sustained fracture of both bones of left leg,
GSD, J
Macma_854_2012
fracture of ribs both left and right side and also injury on left
eye ball. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was
shifted to Government Hospital, Nirmal and from there she was
shifted to Amrutha Laxmi Multi Speciality Hospital, Nizamabad
and she underwent operation twice and rods were inserted.
Since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of Lorry, the claimant filed the aforesaid
O.P. against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of
the said Lorry, respectively.
4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex parte
and the 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments of
the claim petition including the manner in which the accident
took place and also the involvement of the Van. It is also
contended that the owner and insurance company of the Van
are necessary parties. It is further contended that the amount
claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are
framed before the Tribunal:-
GSD, J
Macma_854_2012
1) Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and
negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.HR-38/K-3029 by
its driver?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
If so to what just amount and against whom?
3) To what relief?
6. During trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were
examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. On behalf of the
respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1-policy
was marked with consent.
7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the
Lorry and accordingly, awarded total compensation of
Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Being not satisfied
with the said amount, the claimant filed the present appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation.
8. Heard and perused the record.
GSD, J
Macma_854_2012
9. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in
which the accident took place has become final as the same is
not challenged either by the owner or insurer of the vehicle.
10. The short question that arises for consideration is
"whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
equitable"?
11. A perusal of Ex.A3-Medical Certificate, the claimant had
sustained fracture of 4th and 5th ribs, which is grievous injury.
The record discloses that initially, the claimant was shifted to
Community Health Centre, Nirmal and thereafter, he was
admitted in Amrutha Laxmi Hospital, Nizamabad, for better
treatment, where he was treated as inpatient from 14.05.2007
to 21.05.2007. Though the Tribunal has given a categorical
finding that the claimant has received fracture of 4th and 5th
right side ribs, which is grievous in nature and she was in the
hospital for about 8 days for the purpose of treatment, but
conservatively awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for fracture of two
ribs; Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenditure; Rs.5,000/-
towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of
GSD, J
Macma_854_2012
income, which appears to be too meagre. Thus, looking into
the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, nature and
period of treatment undergone by her and the amount spent by
her towards medical expenses, transportation, attendant
charges and extra nourishment, this Court feels that in all the
claimant is entitled to Rs.70,000/- instead of Rs.25,000/-.
12. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by
enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal
from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.70,000/-. The enhanced amount shall
carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of order passed
by the Tribunal till the date of realization. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal,
shall stand closed.
__________________
JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
05.07.2022
gkv
