J Nagaraju vs P Vishnu Babu Rao 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5365 Tel

 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.1328 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the award dated 05.08.2013 in

O.P.No.2223 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-XVIII Additional Chief Judge-cum-IV Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal),

wherein the said claim application filed by the appellant herein

seeking compensation was allowed-in-part, awarding Rs.4,20,313/-

with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

counsel for the 3rd respondent-insurer. None appeared for the

1st respondent-owner of Eicher vehicle. Perused the record.

3. During the pendency of this appeal, on 17.03.2016, learned

counsel for the appellant represented that the 2nd respondent-driver

of the Eicher vehicle is not a necessary party and that the appeal

against him be dismissed. Considering the above representation,

the appeal against the 2nd respondent was dismissed as withdrawn.

4. The appellant herein filed claim application seeking

compensation of Rs.10 lakhs on account of the injuries sustained

by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.07.2009

at about 04:00 a.m. According to the claimant, on that day, he

along with his friends was traveling in Maruthi Van from

Hyderabad to Tanuku and at about 04:00 a.m., one Eicher vehicle

bearing No.AP 37 Y 4949, driven by its diver in a rash and

negligent manner at high speed came in the opposite direction and

dashed the Maruthi Van, resulting in serious injuries i.e., fracture

of ribs, scapula and multiple abrasions on forehead and face of the

claimant, besides causing serious injuries to its inmates. Police,

Nakrekal registered a case in Cr.No.138 of 2009 against the driver

of the Eicher vehicle. The claimant was admitted in Government

Hospital, Nakrekal of Nalgonda District and was treated there

for five days and thereafter shifted to Yashoda Hospital,

Secunderabad. As a result of the accident, the claimant suffered

pain and mental agony and also incurred huge expenditure and

suffered loss financially.

5. Respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle and

respondent No.2-driver remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

Respondent No.3-insurer filed counter opposing the claim and

denying its liability to pay the compensation.

6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record,

the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the Eicher 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 was entitled for a total compensation of

Rs.4,20,313/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said

amount with interest at 7% per annum. Dissatisfied with the same,

the claimant preferred the present appeal.

7. The only question that arises for consideration is - whether

the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation, and if so

to what extent?

8. The point that arises for determination in this appeal is -

whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation

and if so, to what extent?

9. The evidence on record would disclose that P.W.1 was

admitted in Government Hospital and later in Kamineni and

Yashoda Hospitals. P.W.3, Dr.R.T.S.Naik, Neuro Surgeon of

Yashoda Hospital, deposed that the claimant was admitted on

29.07.2009 and was discharged on 01.08.2009. He found fracture

of left orbit and frontal bone of the skull, fracture of left seventh

rib, fracture or left collar bone and wing bone and necessary

surgeries were done and plates and screws were fixed.

10. A perusal of the documents Exs.A-9 to A-14 would fortify

the contention of the claimant that he suffered the above stated

injuries in the accident. Keeping in view the fracture injuries

sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal held that it is not a case of

partial or permanent disability and had awarded Rs.3,00,313/-

towards actual medical expenses, besides Rs.50,000/- towards

future medical expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering

and loss of amenities, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and

Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges and damage to clothing

etc. It appears that the Tribunal had taken into consideration

the evidence of the doctor P.W.2 and the billing manager

P.W.2 and after perusing the medical bills and the entire material

on record had awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,20,313/-

(Rs.3,00,313/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.10,000/- +

Rs.10,000/-). But the Tribunal had failed to award any

compensation for the fracture injuries sustained by the claimant in

the accident. The claimant suffered fracture of left orbit and

frontal bone of the skull, fracture of left seventh rib, fracture of left

collar bone and wing bone i.e., five grievous injuries, apart from

simple injuries. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is

awarded for the said five injuries. Since the claimant suffered

injuries to his head, ribs and other vital parts, he requires

future medical treatment and the Tribunal had awarded only

Rs.50,000/-. It would be just and proper if the same is enhanced

to Rs.1,00,000/- The award of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of

amenities and pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards extra

nourishment and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges and

damage to clothing are just and reasonable and needs no

interference. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for a total

compensation of Rs.6,20,313/- (Rs.3,00,313/- + Rs.1,00,000/-+

Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + 10,000/-).

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

Tribunal is modified by enhancing the compensation from

Rs.4,20,313/- to Rs.6,20,313/-. The enhanced amount shall carry

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

i.e., 05.08.2013 till realization, payable by respondents 1 and 3

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

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

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 27.10.2022 Lrkm