United India Insurance Company ... vs Thummalapalle Surender Anr.
2022 Latest Caselaw 1618 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                 M.A.C.M.A.No.4867 of 2008


JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded, the appellants/respondents 2 and 3/insurer filed

this appeal against the decree and award dated 30.05.2006

in M.V.O.P.No.1194 of 2005 on the file of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge

(III-FTC), Warangal, at Mahabubabad.

2, The first respondent/petitioner filed petitionclaiming

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of injuries

sustained by him in a motor accident dated 20.11.2003.

The Tribunal after due enquiry and by considering the

material and evidence awarded compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the

date of the petition till the date of realization and the

respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay.

                                       2                             NTR,J
                                                          Macma_4867_2008




3.   In   this        appeal,   the       learned   counsel    for   the

appellants/insurer fairly submitted that this appeal is filed

contesting the award of amount of Rs.50,000/- towards

plastic surgery for a lacerated injury and Rs.25,000/-

towards future treatment.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents pleaded that the

claim petitioner suffered injury on the face which resulted in

disfiguration of the face. Thus to repair and restore the

normalcy of face, as part of treatment plastic surgery was

needed and as there is requirement of future treatment, the

Tribunal had rightly considered and awarded the amounts.

As such no tenable ground is made out by the appellant for

interference.

5. A perusal of the record is disclosing that the claim

petitioner as PW-1 testified about the injuries and the

treatment. The evidence of Doctor/PW-2 and wound

certificate/Ex.A-2 are substantiating the version given by the

injured/PW-1. Further the Doctor/PW-2 deposed that the

grievous injury on head and brain caused disfiguration of 3 NTR,J Macma_4867_2008

face required plastic surgery and the future medical

necessities for the giddiness, loss of memory. The

appellant/insurer except raising bald contention, failed to

elicit any fact in the cross examination of the witnesses or

placed any material to consider otherwise. Thus, awarding

amounts towards plastic surgery, future medical expenditure

found fair and reasonable.

6. In the circumstances, as the appellant/insurer is not

disputing the other aspects of the award and in the absence

of any impropriety, the award deserves to be confirmed.

7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

___________________ JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

Date:30.03.2022 CCM