Valgote Raji Reddy vs Dusa Sayanna
2022 Latest Caselaw 5228 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.238 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the award dated 01.11.2013

in M.V.O.P.No.672 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Nizamabad

(for short 'the Tribunal), wherein the said claim application filed

by appellant herein seeking compensation was allowed-in-part,

awarding Rs.78,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the

date of petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel

for the 2nd respondent-insurer. None appears for the 1st respondent-

owner of Tama Sumo. Perused the material on record.

3. The appellant herein filed claim application seeking

compensation of Rs.2 lakhs on account of the injuries sustained by

him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.01.2012 at

about 03:00 p.m. According to the claimant, on that day, he was

going on motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 12 1365 from

Armoor Village towards Nizamabad and when he reached in front

of Sukhjith Factory, Nizamabad at about 03:00 p.m., meanwhile, a

Tata Sumo bearing registration No.AP 25 TV 0560, driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner on wrong side came from

Nizamabad side and dashed the motor cycle of the claimant,

resulting in the claimant falling down from the motorcycle and the

offending vehicle ran over him. The claimant sustained multiple

fracture of both bones of right leg, fracture of right thigh, multiple

and crush injures to right toe, fracture of skull, fracture of ribs,

multiple and grievous injuries on head, chest and all over the body.

The claimant was shifted to Government Headquarters Hospital,

Nizamabad where he was treated as inpatient and underwent major

operations and surgeries and his right toe was amputated and steel

rods were implanted to his right leg. The claimant incurred an

expenditure of more than Rs.2 lakhs towards treatment, medicines

and extra nourishment etc., and he is continuing his follow up

treatment under private surgeons and specialist. Police, Nizamabad

Rural registered a case in Cr.No.28 of 2012 against the driver of

the Tata Sumo. It is stated that the claimant was aged 32 years at

the time of accident and was doing agriculture, vegetable and milk

business and getting an income of Rs.25,000/- per month.

4. Respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle remained

ex parte. Respondent No.2-insurer filed written statement

opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the

compensation.

5. On consideration of the evidence available on record,

the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the Tata sumo vehicle by its driver. The said

finding had become final, as no appeal is preferred by the

respondents questioning the same. The Tribunal further held that

the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.78,500/-.

Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest

at 7.5% per annum. Not satisfied with the same, the claimant filed

the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

6. The only question that arises for consideration in the present

appeal is - whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of

compensation, and if so to what extent?

7. It is not in dispute that the claimant suffered multiple

fracture of both bones of right leg, fracture of right thigh, multiple

and crush injures to right toe, fracture of skull, fracture of

ribs, multiple and grievous injuries on head, chest and all over the

body in the accident. In order to prove the same, the claimant

examined P.W.2, the doctor, who treated him. P.W.2 in his

evidence stated that on 23.01.2022, the claimant was brought to

the Government Hospital, Nizamabad with injuries. He stated that

the claimant sustained injury of right leg with fracture of both

bones and fracture of right femur and the injuries are grievous

in nature and that he may not be able to attend normal works up to

90 days. As per Ex.A-3 injury certificate, the patient has bone

implants and may be required for removal in future.

8. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.30,000/- towards the injuries.

Since P.W.2 deposed that the claimant sustained fracture injury

to right leg and fracture of both bones and fracture of right femur,

the award of said compensation of Rs.30,000/- is too meagre.

After considering the evidence on record, I am of the view that

the award of an amount of Rs.75,000/- would meet the ends of

justice. The Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/-

towards pain and suffering. The claimant has suffered grievous

multiple injuries all over his body and underwent operations and

surgeries with bone implants which may be required to be removed

in future. Therefore, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards

pain and suffering. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards

extra nourishment and the same is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-.

The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.13,500/- under the

relief of loss of earnings. The claimant deposed in his evidence

that he used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month by doing agriculture,

vegetable and milk business prior to the accident. Though there is

no oral or documentary evidence to substantiate the said

contention, but having regard to the fact that the claimant may not

be able to attend normal works up to 90 days, an amount of

Rs.10,000/- per month i.e., Rs.30,000/- for three months is awarded

towards loss of earnings. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for a

total compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rs.75,000/- + Rs.50,000/- +

Rs.20,000/- + Rs.30,000/-). The compensation awarded by the

Tribunal under different heads are set aside.

9. In the result, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The award of the

Tribunal is modified by enhancing the compensation from

Rs.78,500/- to Rs.1,75,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry

interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of award passed by the Tribunal

i.e., 01.11.2017 till realization, payable by respondents 1 and 2

jointly and severally. There shall be no order as to costs.

10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 20.10.2022 Lrkm