D. Suresh vs The Depot Manager,
2023 Latest Caselaw 1326 Tel

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A. No.40 of 2020

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the petitioner being

dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII

Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in M.V.O.P. No.214 of

2015, dated 25.10.2019, seeking enhancement of

compensation granted by the Tribunal.

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

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Appellant is the petitioner in the main O.P. The injured-

petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 (1) (a) of Motor

Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the

injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 02.12.2014. It is stated by the claimant that on

2.12.2014 he along with his brother Kishan was going towards

Metpally on his bullock cart to harvest sugar cane. His

brother in law Ramdas was going ahead with his bullock cart

and when they reached near Santosh Nagar village at about 5-

MGP, J MACMA.No.40 of 2020

15 a.m. in the meantime RTC bus bearing No. AP 25 Z 0074

came from the back side in a rash and negligent manner with

high speed driven by its driver and dashed their bullock cart,

as a result, petitioner sustained fracture injuries all over the

body and the bullock cart was completely damaged and two

bulls sustained severe injuries and became useless.

Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was taken to

Government Hospital, Armoor and from there he was shifted to

Government Hospital, Nizamabad and was treated as inpatient

from 2.12.2014 to 6.12.2014 and he was also treated in a

private hospital and incurred huge amount towards medical

expenses. It is further stated that prior to the accident, the

petitioner is hale and healthy and aged 23 years and earning

Rs.12,000/- per month by doing agriculture and labour works.

Due to the accident, he lost his income and became disabled.

Therefore, he is seeking compensation of Rs.5 lakhs against

the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the owner, controlling

authority and driver of the RTC bus jointly and severally.

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

manner of accident, nature of injuries sustained by the

MGP, J MACMA.No.40 of 2020

petitioner, age, avocation and income of the claimant and

further contended that the said accident was occurred at

about 5-15 a.m. and at the time of accident, the rider of the

bullock cart and his brother were sleeping and the bulls are

going on the road on their own and when the bus came near

the bullock cart, the bulls got confused and started running,

as such, the accident occurred and that the compensation

claimed is excessive and exorbitant and sought for dismissal of

the claim petition.

4. Respondent No.3 has also filed counter denying all the

material averments and sought the petitioner to prove the age,

avocation and income and also the manner of accident and

sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. In order to prove their case, on behalf of the petitioner,

he got himself examined as PW-1 and also examined PWs.2 to

4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of the respondents,

RW-1 was examined, however, no document was marked.

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of

MGP, J MACMA.No.40 of 2020

Rs.95,000/- towards compensation along with proportionate

costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition

till the date of deposit to the appellant-claimant against the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

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

the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Perused the material available on record.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has

submitted that although the claimant, by way of medical

evidence i.e., Ex.A2 injury certificate, Ex.A9 case sheet and

also by examining PW-2 who is the Civil Assistant Surgeon,

Government Hospital, sufficiently established that the

claimant has sustained grievous injuries and became disabled.

However, the tribunal has not considered any disability and

furthermore awarded meager amount towards compensation.

9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought to sustain the impugned

award of the Tribunal contending that the tribunal after

considering the manner of accident and the injuries sustained

MGP, J MACMA.No.40 of 2020

by the petitioner and the treatment taken by him, has awarded

reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference

by this Court.

10. With regard to the manner of accident, the Tribunal after

evaluating the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A1 First

Information Report and Ex.A4 charge sheet rightly held that

the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP.25.Z.0074. Therefore, this

Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings of the

tribunal. Now the only dispute in the present appeal is with

regard to the quantum of compensation.

11. As per the medical evidence available on record, the

claimant has sustained fracture of right supera and infera

pubic rami-undisplaced, 2) blunt injury to the lower back, 3)

blunt injury over the scrotal injury and 4) minor abrasion

present over left leg. Injuries 2 to 4 are simple in nature and

injury No.1 is grievous in nature. PW-2 Civil Assistant

Surgeon in Government Hospital deposed that the petitioner

was treated as inpatient from 2.12.2014 and discharged on

6.12.2014 and Ex.A9 case sheet was issued by their hospital

MGP, J MACMA.No.40 of 2020

and Ex.A2 injury certificate was issued by Dr.Harikrishna.

Though PW-2 was cross-examined at length nothing was

elicited to disbelieve his evidence. Therefore, considering the

said fact, the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/-

towards loss of earnings, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation

charges, Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and extra

nourishment, Rs.40,000/- towards damage of bullock cart and

Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, which appears to be

very less. Therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance the

same and awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- for one grievous

injury, Rs.30,000/- for three simple injuries @ Rs.10,000/- for

each simple injury, Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering,

Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, attendant and extra

nourishment, Rs.50,000/- towards bullock cart, Rs.15,000/-

towards loss of earnings during the treatment period and

Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses. Thus in all the

petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- under all

counts.

13. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by

enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal

MGP, J MACMA.No.40 of 2020

from Rs.95,000/- to Rs.1,60,000/-. The enhanced amount

shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till

the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2

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, he is entitled to withdraw the

compensation amount without furnishing any security. No

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 20.03.2023 pgp