Vishwanadhula Ramesh vs N. Sathaiah And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 2280 Tel

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

                M.A.C.M.A.No.2808 OF 2007

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Injured,

questioning the order and decree, dated 03.07.2007 passed in

O.P.No.179 of 2006 on the file of the Chairman, MACT-Cum-V

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at

Miryalguda (for short, the Tribunal).

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

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 read

with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 claiming

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the sustained injuries by

him in a motor vehicle accident. That on 15.02.2006 at about

10:00 am, the petitioner and his friend namely Ragi Veera

Chary were going on motor cycle CT 100 bearing No.AP-24-L-

5586 from Haliya to Nalgonda and the petitioner was riding

the motor cycle on extreme left side of the road in normal

speed by observing traffic rules, and when they reached near

Venkatapuram near Pulimamidi bus stage at about 10:20 am,

one auto bearing No.AP-24-V-7443 came in opposite direction

in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the

NBK, J MACMA_2808_2007

motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner and

his friend received injuries and the petitioner received fracture

of right left both bone of tibia and fibula and other multiple

injuries all over the body. Immediately, after the accident the

petitioner and other injured persons were shifted to

Government Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda, later to Sri

Rama Orthopedic Hospital, Nalgonda and petitioner was

discharged on 08.03.2006. The Police, Alwal registered the

case in Cr.No.10 of 2006 under Section 337 of IPC against the

driver of the auto of respondent No.1. Prior to aforesaid

accident, the petitioner was working as private employee in

Sri Srinivasa Flywood and Glass Works, Nalgonda and earning

Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, he laid the claim against

the respondents.

4. Before the Tribunal, first respondent remained exparte

and 2nd respondent filed written statement and denied the

material averments made in the petition.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are

framed before the Tribunal:-

1) Whether the petitioner received injuries in the road accident that took place on 15.02.2006 at about

NBK, J MACMA_2808_2007

10:30 am, in the outskirts of Venkatapuram village between Pulimamidi bus stage? If so, whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing registration No.AP-24-V-7443, by its driver ?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

6. During trial, on behalf of the claimant, the injured

examined himself as PW-1 and doctors who treated him are

examined as PW-2 and PW-3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8.

On behalf of the respondents, marked Ex.B-1 Copy of

Insurance policy under Ex.B-1 and reported no oral evidence.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the auto and awarded total compensation of Rs.33,000/- with

interest @ 7.5% per annum, i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards

medical expenses and extra-nourishment, Rs.5,000/- towards

pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- medical expenses for the

treatment taken at Yashoda Hospital, Rs.3,000/- towards

transportation and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of future

NBK, J MACMA_2808_2007

earnings. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the

appellant filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement of

the same.

8. Heard both sides and perused the material available on

record.

9. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the

appellant is that the Court below erred in not awarding the

compensation towards pain and suffering due to the injuries

received in the accident. It is further contended that the

amounts granted under the head of extra-nourishment are

mixed with the medical expenses, which is very meager.

10. A perusal of the record, it is seen that awarding the

amount of extra-nourishment by inclusive of medical

expenses that too a meager amount i.e., Rs.15,000/- is not a

reasonable one. In view of the fracture injury and treatment

under gone by the petitioner, it is just and reasonable to

award an amount of Rs.20,000/- exclusively under the head

of extra-nourishment. Further, an amount of Rs.5,000/-

awarded towards pain and suffering is also very meager and

NBK, J MACMA_2808_2007

needs to be enhanced by Rs.20,000/-, keeping in view the

nature of the injury as grievous.

11. Further, on a perusal of the evidence on record, it can

safely be concluded that the petitioner might have shuttled

from Nalgonda to Hyderabad and from Hyderabad to

Nalgonda and from Nalgonda to Halia after his discharge, for

which Rs.3,000/- awarded towards transportation is enhanced

to Rs.5,000/-. Except the above said enhancements, the

Judgment of the Tribunal remains unchanged.

12. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation amount

awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.33,000/- to Rs.70,000/-.

The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum

from the date of claim petition till realization.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed. No costs.

______________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 12.09.2023 VRKS

NBK, J MACMA_2808_2007

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

M.A.C.M.A.No.2808 OF 2007

12.09.2023 VRKS