Syed Noorullah Hussaini vs Akbar Khan
2023 Latest Caselaw 3080 Tel

         HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
                          AND
     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.1096 of 2023

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P. Sam Koshy)

       The present appeal is filed by the appellant seeking for

enhancement of the award passed by the Chairman, Motor

Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal (I-Additional District Judge)

Warangal, (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.605 of 2007

decided on 05.12.2013.


2.     Vide the said impugned award in an injury case, the

Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.14,28,000/- in

favour of the appellant. It is this award which is under challenge

in the present appeal.


3.     There is no representation on behalf of the appellant for a

last couple of hearings. Today also in spite of repeated calls,

there is no representation. The present is an appeal which was

filed in the year 2015. Considering the fact that the appeal is

pending for more than eight (8) years, we proceed to decide the

appeal with the material evidence on record and also taking

assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent

Nos.2 and 3.

4. The facts available on record shows that the appellant

met with an accident on 22.07.2006 when he was travelling on

Bajaj Motorcycle CT 100 bearing registration No.AP13 H-1808

hit by TATA Car bearing registration No.AP9 Y-3098. As a result

of the said accident, the appellant said to have received grievous

injuries and he was treated at Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda,

Hyderabad. He was an impatient at the said hospital from

22.07.2006 to 17.08.2006. Thereafter, he was discharged and

claim application was filed in the year 2007 which finally stood

allowed vide the impugned award.

5. The appellant seems to have been aggrieved by the

compensation which has been awarded by the Tribunal and

which according to the appellant is on the lower side.

6. According to the appellant, the income taken into account

by the Tribunal is what he is aggrieved of. As the Tribunal has

erred in taking only 1/4th of his income for the purpose of

quantification of the compensation.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant

was that the Tribunal ought not to have taken into account the

mental disability alone which was assessed at 25% for the

purpose of quantification of the compensation. According to the

learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal has also not

taken into consideration the qualification of the appellant and

the prospects that the appellant had, which would have fetched

him more income and all of which should had been taken note

of by the Tribunal. Moreover, the future prospects also should

have been considered by the Tribunal.

8. Having gone through the pleadings available on record,

what is reflected is that, the appellant had filed a claim

application seeking for a compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-. In

support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant

examined PW.1 to PW.9 and in the process marked exhibits Ex-

A1 to Ex-A22 and Ex-X1 to Ex-X3 were also accepted before the

Tribunal. PWs.2 to 7 were the doctors who have treated the

appellant.

9. Paragraph No.18 of the award would clearly reflect the

medical evidence which has come on record. PW.7 who is the

member of the Medical Board have assessed the appellant at

25% as partial permanent disability due to the injury sustained

on his left leg. Similarly, paragraph No.25 of the award would

show that PWs.8 and 9 were also the doctors who had given the

statement that the appellant has been suffering from cognitive

disability of 15% so also gait disability of 15%.

10. Given the said specific finding that has been brought on

record, if we look into the quantification of the compensation it

would reveal that the Tribunal had at the first instance

quantified the compensation to the extent of 25% of physical

disability that he has suffered from, as would be evident from

paragraph No.30 of the award and the compensation quantified

was Rs.6,48,000/-.

11. In addition to this, the Tribunal in paragraph No.32 also

awarded an additional compensation of 15% of quantified

disability amounting to Rs.3,88,000/- i.e. the percentage of

cognitive disability as has been certified by the doctors PWs.8

and 9. In addition to the aforesaid compensation, the Tribunal

has also in paragraph No.36 awarded Rs.2,00,000/- additional

amount towards the mental disability that the appellant is said

to have suffered from.

12. The Tribunal further awarded the entire medical

expenditure incurred by the appellant after adjusting the

amount of money which the father of the appellant had got

reimbursed from his department. The Tribunal also awarded an

additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering

gone through by the appellant.

13. Given the entire factual matrix as has been narrated in

the preceding paragraphs, we do not find any strong case made

out by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation.

14. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly,

dismissed. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J

___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J

Date: 11.10.2023 GSD