Arshed Khan vs Mohammad Abdul Razak 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1289 Tel

                                 1                          RRN, J
                                                   MACMA No.1660 of 2015

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                 M.A.C.M.A. No. 1660 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

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

aggrieved by the Order and decree dt.07.05.2015 in O.P No.270 of

2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

(District Judge), Nizamabad, (for short "the Tribunal").

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

appellant/petitioner and Sri. V. Durga, 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 he was working as a

driver on Bus bearing No.AP-25U-1718 under respondent No.1. On

12.03.2009 at about 10.30 a.m. the petitioner was proceeding on

the said Bus to Mamdapur with passengers of the marriage party.

When the Bus reached near Kuprial village, he could not control the

said Bus and hit a lorry bearing No.RJ-UG-4476 which was coming

in opposite direction. As a result, the petitioner sustained a

fracture to the right thigh, fracture of the forearm, amputation of

the left hand finger, head injury, multiple grievous injuries on 2 RRN, J MACMA No.1660 of 2015

various part of the body. As such, he filed the claim petition

claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

5. During the enquiry, the respondent No.1 died and his

LR is brought on record as respondent No.3. He remained ex parte.

Respondent No.2 filed a counter denying the petition allegations.

Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. To prove his case, the petitioner examined PWs 1 and 2

and got marked Ex.A1 to A9, Ex.C1 and C2. On behalf of

respondent No.2, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was got

marked.

7. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal awarded

Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the

present appeal by the petitioner for enhancement of compensation.

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, Ex.C1 and granted very meagre

compensation. The Tribunal also did not consider Ex.A6 Hospital

bill. 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 3 RRN, J MACMA No.1660 of 2015

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 examined

the petitioner and found the following injuries:

      1)      Crush injury to left ring finger


      2)      Shaft femur right


      3)      Fracture shaft radius right

He further stated that on 25.03.2009 left ring finger was

amputated. The petitioner was discharged on 30.03.2009 and the

petitioner needs an operation for removal of rods inserted in his

lower limb and that petitioner suffered 50% permanent partial

disability.

11. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,60,000/- towards injuries,

pain and suffering and also for the amputation of the right hand

ring finger. This Court is inclined to enhance the same to

Rs.2,00,000/- as the Tribunal granted a very meagre amount under

all those heads. The Tribunal also failed to consider Ex.A6 Hospital

bill for Rs.9,900/- as the author of the bill was not examined. In

the catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the

Tribunal need not call for strict proof of documents. As such, this 4 RRN, J MACMA No.1660 of 2015

Court is inclined to award Rs.9,900/- towards the Hospital bill.

The Tribunal also failed to grant any amount under loss of

amenities. The Tribunal rightly granted Rs.50,000/- towards

deformity due to the shortening of the lower limb. The Tribunal

awarded Rs.1,500/- towards transportation and the same is

enhanced to Rs.3,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,000/- towards

extra-nourishment and the same is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. The

Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.1,500/- towards medical expenses and

Rs.36,000/- towards loss of earnings.

12. In all, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.3,05,400/- (Rs.

Three lakh, five thousand and four hundred only) towards

compensation.

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

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.2,50,000/- to

Rs.3,05,400/- (Rs. Three lakh, five thousand and four hundred

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.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the

awarded compensation to the petitioner. 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 5 RRN, J MACMA No.1660 of 2015

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

16th day of March, 2023

BDR