Neelam Rama Rao, vs Ch.Vijitha,
2023 Latest Caselaw 3584 Tel

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
                                  AND
            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI


                   M.A.C.M.A.No.1076 of 2023


JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)


      Heard Sri P. Ravi Shanker, learned counsel for the

appellant/claimant and Sri Veeraswamy, learned counsel for the

respondents.

2. The present is an appeal filed by the appellant/claimant

challenging the impugned award dated 17.01.2012 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.1084 of 2005 by the Court of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal (I Addl. District Judge) Khamman (herein referred

to as 'the Tribunal'). Vide the said impugned award, the Tribunal

had granted a compensation of Rs.60,000/- with interest at the

rate of 7.5% per annum.

3. The appellant is an employee of the Singareni Collieries

Company Limited of Kothagudem area. He met with an accident on

24.07.2004 when his scooter bearing registration No.AP-16-D-5489

was hit by another motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-20-D-

8579. As a result of the said accident, the appellant is said to have

sustained injuries on his head, ribs as also on his abdomen.

The appellant moved an application under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') before the Tribunal

seeking for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest.

4. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant seeking for enhancement of the compensation is that by

virtue of the injuries sustained from the said accident and the

resultant injuries that the appellant had suffered with, he would

not be able to join his duties back and therefore sought for

voluntary retirement and in lieu his son was given dependent

employment. Since there was loss of his employment, the appellant

had sought for compensation with total loss of income.

5. Perusal of the record would show that the PW.3 -

K.Prasanna Simha who is a himself in his evidence has stated that

after the treatment there does not seem to any permanent

disability, as such which was visible.

6. It was also the opinion of the Tribunal that sine there was no

disability established, the reason for obtaining voluntary

retirement and getting declared medically unfit was very unusual

so far as the Tribunal is concerned. Nonetheless, for the injuries

suffered and other accidental expenses which the appellant had

undergone, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain

and suffering, Rs.2,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.3,000/-

towards extra nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation

for the period of treatment that the appellant had undertook. It is

this quantification of compensation which has been assailed by the

appellant in the present appeal.

7. On due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances

of the case, particularly the evidence which has been discussed by

the Tribunal so far as PW.3 is concerned, whereby PW.3 has

specifically stated there does not seem to any permanent disability

suffered by the appellant. We do not find that the award passed by

the Tribunal to be unreasonably low. Nonetheless, what is

apparent from the evidence of PW.3 is that the appellant had

suffered certain major fractures. Five of his ribs were fractured and

there was a fracture on the parietal bone skull. All of which are

definitely quite serious in nature.

8. Though the appellant did receive timely proper medical

attention and he could recover from the same. Nonetheless,

considering the overall injuries which the appellant had suffered,

we are of the considered opinion that it would be suffice if the

compensation payable to the appellant is enhanced in lump sum

by another Rs.1,20,000/- considering the injuries and the fact that

he was hospitalized for a period of almost two (2) weeks and has

also undergone certain surgeries for the fractures that he has

sustained.

9. As a consequence of enhancing the compensation by another

Rs.1,20,000/-, the total compensation payable to the appellant

comes to Rs.1,80,000/- instead of Rs.1,20,000/- as was awarded.

Remaining part of the award so far as interest part is concerned,

would remain intact.

10. The appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order

as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J

__________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 06.11.2023 GSD