The National Insurance Company ... vs Raghavender Goud
2023 Latest Caselaw 924 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No.2806 of 2018

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by National Insurance Company

Limited, questioning the order and decree, dated 25.05.2018

passed in M.V.O.P.No.45 of 2013 on the file of the Chairman,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, "the Tribunal").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. According to the petitioner, on 12.10.2012, at about

00.20 hours, while he was going from Karmanghat to Turka

Yamjal on motorcycle bearing No.AP 29 BM 0633, when he

reached Sagar Ring Road, L.B.Nagar, one milk van bearing

No.AP 21 TT 2393 being driven by its driver came in rash and

negligent manner and dashed the petitioner's motor cycle from

its back side, due to which the petitioner sustained severe

injuries all over the body and fractured his both legs and hands.

Immediately he was taken to Indus hospital, Kothapet and from

there he was shifted to Apollo Super Specialty Hospital, Jubilee

Hills, for treatment where he was treated as inpatient. Due to

MGP, J Macma_2806_2018

the said accident, the petitioner who was a student, lost one

academic year. Thus, the petitioner is claiming compensation of

Rs.12,00,000/- against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and

severally.

4. Considering the claim and the counter filed by the

respondent No.2, insurance company, and on evaluation of the

evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has

partly allowed the O.P. and awarded compensation of

Rs.8,65,000/- with interest at 7% per annum paid by the

respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the

same, the present appeal has been filed by the insurance

company.

5. Heard both sides and perused the record.

6. A perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that the

Tribunal has framed issue No.1 as to whether the accident

occurred resulting in the injuries to the petitioner if so, was it due

to the fault of the driver of Milk Van bearing No.AP 21 TT 2393 or

the petitioner, and after considering the evidence of P.W.1

coupled with the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1, First

Information Report and Ex.A2, police complaint, the tribunal

MGP, J Macma_2806_2018

has categorically observed that the accident has occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver

and has answered the issue in favour of the claimant and

against the respondents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere

with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due

to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e.,

milk van by its driver.

7. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for

the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal

failed to observe that the medical bills filed by the petitioner as

neither the Author nor doctor who gave treatment was examined

to substantiate the said bills, the petitioner neither adduced any

evidence to show that he lost Academic year nor examined

doctor to prove that he is suffering from permanent disability. In

view of the above, the tribunal was erred in granting

compensation to the petitioner.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the tribunal has rightly awarded compensation

and the interference of this Court is not necessary.

MGP, J Macma_2806_2018

9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the

case of the petitioner is that he was a student and due to the

said accident, he sustained i) abrasion at front of thigh, ii)

abrasion at front leg, iii) abrasion at front thigh and 23 grievous

injuries all over the body and lost one academic year. In order

to support his claim, the petitioner filed Ex.A3, MLC, Exs.A9 to

A31. The tribunal after considering the injuries sustained by the

petitioner, the oral and documentary evidence, has rightly

awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings,

Rs.20,000/- towards transportation, Rs.1,00,000/- towards

extra nourishment, Rs.1,00,000/- for attendant fee,

Rs.45,000/- towards medical bills, Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of

academic year and Rs.2,00,000/- towards partial disability as

the petitioner suffered fracture of proximal third left femur,

fracture of middle third left tibia, fracture of proximal third right

femur, central fracture dislocation left acetabulum and fracture

of right acetabulum. Thus, in all the Tribunal awarded

compensation of Rs.8,65,000/- which cannot be said to be on

higher side. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the

award passed by the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be

dismissed.

MGP, J Macma_2806_2018

10. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed confirming the

award and decree passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 23.02.2023 gms

MGP, J Macma_2806_2018

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A. No.2806 of 2018

DATE: 23.02.2023

gms