Gopu Pedda Bhojanna vs Yammai Nagesh Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1259 Tel

                                   1                         RRN, J
                                                    MACMA No.2349 of 2014

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                   M.A.C.M.A. No. 2349 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A. is preferred by the appellant/petitioner

aggrieved by the Order and decree dt.13.03.2014 in M.V.O.P No.988

of 2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-

Cum-II Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, (for short "the

Tribunal").

2. Heard Sri Azar Sravan Kumar, learned Counsel for the

appellant/petitioner and Sri. Katta Laxmi Prasad, learned Counsel

for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

3. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred

to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The case of the petitioner is that on 19.06.2008 at about

5.30 p.m. near the bridge of Akula Kondoor village, the 1st

respondent drove the motorcycle bearing No.AP-25P-8288 in a rash

and negligent manner, as a result, the motorcycle turned turtle and

the petitioner travelled on the motorcycle as a pillion rider fell on

the road and sustained grievous injuries. Based on the complaint,

Police Nizamabad Rural registered a case in Crime No.216 of 2008

and after investigation, charge-sheeted the 1st respondent for 2 RRN, J MACMA No.2349 of 2014

causing grievous injuries to the petitioner by driving the motorcycle

rashly and negligently and at excessive speed. The petitioner was

shifted to Amrutha Laxmi Multi Specialty Hospital, Nizamabad,

whereat Dr. Jaya Prakash, Orthopedic Surgeon, treated him as

inpatient from 19.06.2008 to 07/07/2008. He underwent the

operation. He incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/- towards

medical expenses. As such, he filed the claim petition claiming

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

5. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a counter denying the

petition allegations. Respondent No.2 mainly contended that the no

accident occurred with the said motorcycle and the petitioner in

collusion with the 1st respondent involved the motorcycle.

Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. To prove his case, the petitioner examined PWs 1 to 3

and got marked Ex.A1 to A12, Ex.X1 and X2. On behalf of

respondent No.2, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 to B4 got

marked.

7. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal awarded

Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the present

appeal by the petitioner for enhancement of compensation.

                                     3                            RRN, J
                                                        MACMA No.2349 of 2014

8.          Learned     counsel    for    the   appellant/petitioner     has

vehemently argued that the Tribunal erred in not appreciating the

evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Ex.A3 to A10 and Ex.A12 and granted

meagre compensation. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded

the compensation and no interference by this Court is required and

prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. A perusal of the record shows that PW.2 who treated the

petitioner deposed that on 19.06.2008 he examined the petitioner

and found the following injuries:

1) Laceration over chin, 3x2 cm, X-Ray shows fracture mandible.

2) Deformity left thumb, X-Ray shows dislocation of metacarpo phalangel joint of thumb.

3) Bleeding nose, CT scan of brain shows fracture of nasal bones.

4) Bilateral red eyes, CT scan shows fracture lateral walls of both orbits, and

5) Swelling over face, CT scan shows fracture bilateral maxilla and zygomatic bones.

He treated the petitioner as inpatient from 19.06.2008 to

03.07.2008 along with dental, Ophthalmic and ENT surgeons.

11. The petitioner filed medical bills to the tune of

Rs.74,934/-. But, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.15,000/- as per 4 RRN, J MACMA No.2349 of 2014

the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the Second

Schedule is now repealed, this Court is inclined to award

Rs.74,934/- towards medical expenses.

12. The Tribunal rightly took the annual income of the

petitioner at Rs.40,000/- and awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of

earnings. The medical record shows that the petitioner took

treatment up to 14.10.2008, and also awarded Rs.25,000/- towards

pain and suffering. No interference is required in this regard.

13. The Tribunal failed to award transportation charges,

attendant charges and extra-nourishment. Hence, this Court is

inclined to award Rs.20,000/- towards the same.

14. In all, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.1,39,934/- (Rs. One

lakh, thirty nine thousand, nine hundred and thirty four only)

towards compensation.

15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.60,000/- to

Rs.1,39,934/- (Rs. One lakh, thirty nine thousand, nine hundred

and thirty four only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of

petition till the date of realization. The rest of the claim of the

petitioner is dismissed. Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and

severally liable to pay the awarded compensation to the petitioner.

                                   5                       RRN, J
                                                 MACMA No.2349 of 2014

The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount with costs

and interest within two months from the date of receipt of the copy

of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to

withdraw the entire amount.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,

pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.

______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

______day of March, 2023

BDR