Smt.Gajula Rajubai vs G.Chinna Mallaiah And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 4082 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4082 Tel
Judgement Date : 17 November, 2023

Telangana High Court

Smt.Gajula Rajubai vs G.Chinna Mallaiah And Anr on 17 November, 2023

Bench: K. Sujana

          THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
                     M.A.C.M.A.No.2205 of 2008
JUDGMENT:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated

04.03.2008 in O.P.No.605 of 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-V 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.67,676/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Thousand Six Seventy Six 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 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs only) for

the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road accident.

4. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the Scooter bearing No. AP 25 J 2955

and respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company Limited.

5. Heard Sri Y.S. Yellanand Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant as well as Sri Suresh Kumar Bolla, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

SKS,J MACMA.No.2205_2008

6. Insurance Company has not filed any appeal in 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 04.02.2004 at about 08:00 A.M., while the petitioner going by walk from

B.C. Colony towards Munipalli Village, meantime, the driver of the scooter

bearing No.AP 25 J 2955 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner,

with high speed, came from behind and dashed the appellant, due to which,

the appellant fell down and sustained multiple and grievous injuries.

Immediately after the accident, the appellant was shifted to Tirumala

Nursing Home, Nizamabad.

8. The Tribunal on consideration of 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.67,676/-

payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Aggrieved by the quantum, the

claimants filed the present appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though she received

fractural injuries and she was in the hospital for a period of one month, the

Tribunal did not considered the same and awarded only meager amount.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted

that the Tribunal awarded sufficient amount and there is no need to

enhance the said amount.

SKS,J MACMA.No.2205_2008

11. As seen from the record, to prove the claim, the appellant examined

himself as P.W.1 and also examined Medical Officer as P.W.2 and marked

Exs.A1 to A10. The respondent No.2-Insurance company examined as RW1

and marked Exs.B1 to B3.

12. To prove the injuries, Dr. Sanjeev Singh Yadav examined as P.W.2 and

according to him, the appellant received grievous injuries. In his opinion,

both injuries are grievous in nature. He conducted operation on first injury

and has done regular dressing. The wound did not heal. Therefore, P.W.2

had done second surgery on 06.03.2004 and done skin drafting. P.W.1

discharged on 12.03.2004.

13. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.18000/- towards pain and

suffering for all the injuries, which is meager. As the appellant received

fractural injuries, she is entitled for Rs.30,000/- for fractural injuries and

under the head of pain and suffering. Further, basing on Exs.A4 and A5,

the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.45,176/- towards medical expenses,

extra diet and attendance which is reasonable and the same is maintained.

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,500/- towards Loss of income, but

this Court is inclined to grant Rs.13,500/- towards loss of income. Further,

Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards transportation charges and extra

nourishment. Further, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards

Damage to clothes.

14. In the light of the above mentioned discussion, the appellant is

entitled to the following amounts:

SKS,J MACMA.No.2205_2008

Heads Compensation awarded

Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-

Medical expenses, extra diet and Rs. 45,176/-

attendance

Transportation and extra Rs.25,000/-

              nourishment

               Loss of income                          Rs.13,500/-

            Damage to clothes                           Rs.5,000/-

                    Total                    Rs.1,18,876/- (Rounded off to
                                                    Rs.1,19,000/-)

15. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits

that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation

and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond

the claim made which is impermissible under law.

12. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental

Insurance Company Limited and another 1, the Apex Court while referring

to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh 2 held as under:

"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."