Telangana High Court
Smt.Nazeema Begum vs Khaleel Ahmed And Anr on 9 November, 2023
Bench: K. Sujana
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1131 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree
dated 30.01.2008 in O.P.No.598 of 2004 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, (Fast Tract Court),
Nizamabad (for short 'The Tribunal'), the appellant/claimant preferred
the present appeal.
2. Vide the aforesaid award, the Tribunal has awarded an amount
of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty-Three Thousand only) as compensation
with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum thereon from
the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal directed
respondent Nos.1 and 2 to deposit the amount.
3. The appellant/claimant filed the claim petition before the
Tribunal under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w
Rule 455 of the A.P.M.V Rules, 1989 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakhs only) for the injuries sustained by the appellant
in the road accident.
4. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and respondent No.2
is the Insurance Company Limited.
SKS,J
MACMA.No.1131_2008
5. Heard Sri Y.S. Yella Nand Gupta, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant.
6. Insurance Company not filed any appeal disputing the liability
and also not disputing the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
7. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the appellant
that on 23.03.2004 at 08:00 P.M., while the appellant and others were
travelling in auto bearing No. AP 25 U 6087 from Sarangapur to
Nizamabad near turning at Arsapally Village, driver of the vehicle
drove the same in rash and negligent manner at high speed and
dashed the cyclist from behind, and auto was turned turtle. Due to
which, the appellant sustained fractural injuries.
8. The Tribunal on considering the entire evidence, both oral and
documentary, gave a finding that the accident had occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and the same vehicle is
insured with respondent No.2, as such, the Tribunal awarded an
amount of Rs.40,000/- payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and
severely. Aggrieved by the quantum, the appellant filed the present
appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the
appellant received fractural injuries, only Rs.40,000 against the claim
SKS,J
MACMA.No.1131_2008
of Rs.3,00,000/- was awarded and the appellant was incurred an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the medical expenses which was not
considered by the Tribunal. There is no amount awarded under the
head of loss of earnings. As such, he prayed the Court to enhance the
compensation of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supported
the award and prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal as there are no
infirmities in the order of the Tribunal. There is no dispute with
regard to the liability. The only contention of the appellant is against
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Now, it is to be seen
whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager in
nature and the appellant is entitled for the enhancement of the
compensation.
11. To prove the injuries, the appellant examined P.W.2-Doctor by
name Dr. P.V. Sudhakar working as a Medical Superintendent in
District Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad and Dr. Sudheer who was
working as Civil Assistant Surgeon in District Head Quarters Hospital
on contract basis. He can identify his writing and signature. Copy of
the Wound Certificate-Ex.A2 had shown the handwriting of the said
Dr. Sudheer. As per Ex.A2, the said Dr. Sudheer examined the
SKS,J
MACMA.No.1131_2008
appellant and found five injuries, out of them, three are grievous
injuries.
12. As seen from the record, to prove the claim, the appellant
himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2-Medical Officer
and Exs.A1 to A9 are marked.
13. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.35,000/- towards pain
and suffering for all the five injuries, which is meager. As the
appellant received three fractural injuries, he is entitled for
Rs.45,000/- for fractural injuries and Rs.10,000/- for two simple
injuries under the head of pain and suffering. Further, the appellant
claimed Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical treatment, no evidence is
adduced to prove the same. Therefore, the Tribunal has not awarded
any amount under the head of medical expenses. Whereas,
admittedly, the appellant was received fractural injuries, as such, the
amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under the head of medical
expenses which is reasonable. Further, the Tribunal awarded an
amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment
which is not sufficient as the appellant received fractural injuries.
Therefore, an amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded towards transportation
and extra nourishment. The appellant was not awarded any amount
under the head of loss of temporary earnings. As the appellant was
SKS,J
MACMA.No.1131_2008
sustained fractural injuries she would not have attended regular
duties for a period of six (6) months as the appellant was beedi roller,
her monthly income was taken as Rs.5,000/- per month. An amount
of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards loss of temporary earnings.
Further, the appellant is awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards
damage to the clothes.
Heads Amounts
Pain and suffering (three grievous
injuries Rs.15,000 X 3 and two Rs.55,000/-
simple injuries Rs.5,000 X 2)
Medical expenses Rs. 20,000/-
Transportation and extra
Rs.25,000/-
nourishment
Loss of temporary earnings Rs.30,000/-
Damage of clothes
Rs.5,000/-
Total Rs.1,35,000/-
14. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part.
Accordingly, the Judgment and decree dated 30.01.2008 in
O.P.No.598 of 2004 passed by the Tribunal are modified enhancing
the compensation from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.1,35,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh Thirty-Five only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
SKS,J
MACMA.No.1131_2008
from the date of petition till realization against respondent Nos.1 and
2.
15. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severely liable to pay the
same and directed to deposit the said amount with interest and costs
after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier within one(1)
month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Judgment and
thereafter, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
______________
K. SUJANA, J
DATE:
SAI
SKS,J
MACMA.No.1131_2008
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1131 of 2008
Date:
SAI
