K.Anjaiah Anjaneyulu, Nizamabad ... vs M.Naveen Kumar, Nizamabad Dist ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1357 Tel

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

                     M.A.C.M.A.No. 65 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the injured questioning the

order and decree, dated 14.09.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.766

of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for

short, the Tribunal).

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

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed a petition

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by

him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.02.2012. It

is stated that on the fateful day, the claimant, along with some

others, was travelling from Nizamabad to Amrad in the auto

bearing No. AP 25 X 1409, owned by respondent No. 1, insured

with respondent No. 2 and when he reached near Sukhjit

factory, one unknown vehicle came from opposite direction

being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at

high speed, dashed the auto, as a result of which, the claimant

sustained fracture of both bones of right leg, fracture of ribs and

MGP, J Macma_65_2017

injuries to chest, both hands, leg and other injuries all over the

body. Immediately, he was taken to Amrutha Laxmi Hospital,

Nizamabad, wherein he was treated as inpatient from

03.02.2012 to 09.02.2012 and underwent surgery on

08.02.2012. He spent Rs.60,000/- towards nursing and

nourishing. According to the claimant, he was hale and healthy,

aged 32 years as on the date of accident and earning

Rs.15,000/- per month by doing agriculture. Due to the said

injuries, he sustained permanent disability and lost his future

earnings. Thus, he laid the claim seeking compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/- against the respondents.

4. Before the Tribunal, while respondent No. 1 set ex parte,

the respondent No. 2 filed counter denying petition averments,

disputing the manner of accident, nature of injuries sustained

by the claimant, avocation and income of the claimant and

further contended that the claim as made is exorbitant and

sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

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

following issues:

1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in injuries sustained by the claiamant, Koutham Anjaiah alias Anjaneyulu, due to rash and negligent driving of auto

MGP, J Macma_65_2017

rickshaw bearing No. AP 25 X 1409 by its driver?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what quantum and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

6. In order to prove the issues, PWs.1 & 2 were examined

and Exs.A.1 to A.9 and C.1 were marked on behalf of the

claimant. On behalf of respondents, RW.1 was examined and

Ex.B.1 was marked.

7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available

on record, the Tribunal has partly allowed the O.P. and awarded

an amount of Rs.54,000/- towards compensation to the

claimant along with proportionate costs and interest @ 6% per

annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of

payment or realization against the respondents jointly and

severally.

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

the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-

Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has

submitted that although the claimant, by way of medical

evidence i.e. the evidence of P.W.2, doctor, orthopedic surgeon

MGP, J Macma_65_2017

in Amrutha Laxmi Hospital, coupled with Exs.A.3, medical

certificate, A.4, discharge summary, A.7, medical bills, C.1, case

sheet, sufficiently established that the claimant has sustained

grievous injuries and fracture of both bones of right leg and

incurred huge medical expenditure, the Tribunal awarded

meager amount towards compensation and prayed to enhance

the same.

10. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2-Insurance Company

sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal

contending that considering the nature of injuries sustained by

the claimant and the period of treatment, the learned Tribunal

has awarded reasonable compensation and the same needs no

interference by this Court.

11. As regards the manner of accident, the Tribunal after

evaluating the evidence of PW. 1, coupled with the documentary

evidence available on record i.e., Exs.A.1, FIR & A.2, Final

Report, held that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing No. AP 25 X 1409.

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said

finding of the Tribunal which is based on appreciation of

MGP, J Macma_65_2017

evidence in proper perspective. Thus, the only dispute in the

present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.

12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the

claimant, he was aged about 32 years at the time of accident

and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month on agriculture. But no

evidence is produced, either oral or documentary, to prove his

income and avocation. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,000/-

towards loss of earnings during the treatment period. Ex.A.4,

discharge summary, discloses that the claimant admitted in the

Amrutha Laxmi Hospital on 03.02.2012 and discharged on

09.02.2012 and even after discharging from the hospital, the

claimant took follow up treatment for nearly three months.

Considering the same, this Court is of the view that the amount

of Rs.9,000/- awarded by the tribunal towards loss of income

during the treatment period is meagre and therefore, this Court

is inclined to award Rs.12,000/- towards loss of earnings. The

Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards transportation, extra

nourishment, attendant charges, which is reasonable and the

same is not disturbed herewith. However, as rightly pointed out

by the learned counsel for the claimant, the tribunal has not

granted any amount towards medical expenses as there is

difference between the amount claimed by the injured and

MGP, J Macma_65_2017

amount shown in medical bills. Therefore, considering the

grievous fractures sustained by the claimant and Exs.A3,

medical certificate, A.6, hospital bills, A.7, medical bills, this

Court is inclined to award Rs.19,698/- towards medical

expenses; Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings and

Rs.25,000/- towards one fracture of right leg. Thus, in all the

claimant is entitled to Rs.96,698/-.

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

enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal

from Rs.54,000/- to Rs.96,698/-. The enhanced amount shall

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

of realization to be payable by the respondents. 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, the claimant is

entitled to withdraw the same. No costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 23.03.2023 gms/tsr

MGP, J Macma_65_2017

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

M.A.C.M.A. No.65 of 2017

DATE: 23.03.2023

gms/tsr