Battu Sreenu vs P.Sreenivasa Rao And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 228 Tel

            HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                     M.A.C.M.A. No.465 of 2016

JUDGMENT:

Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District

Judge, Khammam, in M.A.T.O.P. No.984 of 2004, dated 31.12.2011,

the present appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of

compensation.

2. According to the petitioner, on 14.05.2003 at 8-00 hours the

petitioner along with his wife and daughter started from Khammam on

their Hero Honda motorcycle to attend a marriage of their relative at

Suryapet and when they reached near Mamillagudem village at about

8-30 a.m., auto trolley bearing No. AP 20 U 9561 being driven by its

driver came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed his motorcycle, as a result, they fell down and

received grievous injuries and his daughter also received multiple

injuries. Immediately after the accident, they were shifted to

Government Hospital, Suryapet and from there he was shifted to

Kinnera Bollineni Super Specialty Hospitals Private Limited for better

treatment and he was treated as in-patient and the doctors found that

he sustained damage to his entire teeth, he underwent operation on

three occasions for removal of fractured teeth and then wiring was

done and teeth implantation was done. He spent an amount of

Rs.90,000/- towards his treatment and medical expenses. He was in

coma condition for several days. According to the petitioner, he was

aged 39 years and he is an employee in RTC and was earning

Rs.5,700/- per month. Thus, he claimed compensation of

Rs.6,00,000/- under various heads.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter disputing the manner of

accident. It is further contended that the vehicle was insured with

respondent No.3 and as such, respondent No.3 is liable to pay

compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. Respondent No.3 filed counter disputing the manner of

accident, nature of injuries and the treatment taken by him. It is

further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is

excessive and therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

1. Whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Auto trolley bearing No. AP 20 U 9561 by the 1st respondent, herein or on account of the contributory negligence of petitioners as pleaded by the respondents?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and against whom?

3. To what relief?

6. The tribunal also framed the following additional issues:

1. Whether the petitioner suffered any injuries and disability?

2. Whether the petitioner spent any amount towards medical and other expenses?

3. Whether there was insurance coverage?

4. Whether the driver of Hero Honda vehicle was not holding valid driving license?

5. Whether there was any breach of policy conditions?

6. What is the rate of interest that can be allowed?

7. In order to prove the issues, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and

Exs.A1 to A7 got marked on behalf of the petitioner. On behalf of

respondent No.3, RW-1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were

marked.

8. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on

record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.32,577/- towards

compensation to the appellant-claimant along with proportionate costs

and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date

of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and the

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance

Company. Perused the material available on record.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has submitted

that although the claimant, by way of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and

Exs.A1 to A7, established the fact that the accident occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto, and the

petitioner has sustained permanent disability due to the injuries

sustained by him in the accident, the Tribunal awarded very meager

amount under various heads.

11. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.3-Insurance Company sought to sustain the impugned

award of the Tribunal contending that considering the manner of

accident and the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the

learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and the same

needs no interference by this Court.

12. With regard to the manner of accident, after evaluating the

evidence of PW-1 coupled with documentary evidence available on

record, the Tribunal rightly held that accident occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of auto.

13. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the petitioner deposed

that he sustained damage to his entire teeth and he underwent

operation on three occasions for removal of fractured teeth and then

wiring and teeth implantation was done. He spent an amount of

Rs.90,000/- towards his treatment and medical expenses. In support

of his case, PW-2, the Doctor who treated him deposed that the

petitioner approached him with mandible fracture of broken teeth. He

treated him for 45 days, as he is unable to open his mouth and after he

removed wiring and instead of loss of teeth, he placed ceramic teeth

and he spent Rs.48,000/- towards hospital bill. He further deposed

that in future any damage caused to his teeth, it has to be replaced.

Further Ex.A3 certified copy of injury certificate shows that the

petitioner has sustained four fractures. Therefore, considering the

nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the tribunal awarded an

amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.7,500/-

towards loss of earnings, which are just and reasonable and as such,

they are not disturbed. Further considering the fractures sustained by

the petitioner, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards four

fractures @ Rs.25,000/- for each fracture and Rs.20,000/- towards

extra nourishment, transport and attendant charges. An amount of

Rs.25,000/- is also awarded towards future medical expenses. Since

the petitioner has already received Rs.51,923/- from the department

towards medical expenses, no amount is granted towards medical

expenses. Thus in all the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,77,500/- under

all counts.

14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part by enhancing

the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.32,577/-

to Rs.1,77,500/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5%

p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by

respondent Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The amount shall be

deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order. On such deposit of compensation amount by the

respondents, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw the same without

furnishing any security. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J

18.01.2023 pgp