H Srinivas, Hyderabad vs V Laxmi, Hyderabad And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 2818 Tel

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.174 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

Heard learned counsel Sri V.Achuta Ram for the appellant

and learned standing counsel Sri. K.Ajay Kumar for insurance

company for the respondent no.2.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant

dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-XVII Additional Chief Judge-cum-III Addl.M.S.J.,

Hyderabad, (for short, 'MACT') in M.V.O.P.No.280 of 2009, dated

27.10.2014 and thereby seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.

4. In the intervening night of 28/29.08.2008, at about 3.00

a.m., while the appellant reached Koheda cross roads on his motor

cycle, an Auto bearing registration No.AP-11-W-1776, came in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle, as a

result, the appellant fell down and received injuries. Immediately,

he was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, where he was treated for

some time and later he was shifted to a private hospital, where he LNA,J MACMA No.174 of 2015

was treated as inpatient. Police registered a case against the driver

of Auto for the offence under Section 338 of IPC.

5. The appellant filed the claim petition against the owner of

the vehicle and insurance company under Section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT claiming compensation of

Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

6. The respondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle

remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed

counter denying allegations made in the claim petition including

the manner of accident, age, avocation, injuries sustained by the

appellant and expenditure incurred towards treatment. It was

contended that rider of the motor cycle and the driver of Auto were

not having valid driving licenses and finally prayed for dismissal of

the claim petition.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the MACT has framed the

following issues:

i) Whether the accident resulting in injuries to the petitioner occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto rickshaw bearing no.AP-11-W-1776 ?

LNA,J MACMA No.174 of 2015

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom ?

iii) To what relief ?

8. In order to substantiate the case, the claimant-injured

examined himself as P.W.1 and examined three more witnesses

i.e., P.Ws.2 to 4 on his behalf and marked Exs.A1 to A15. On

behalf of the 2nd respondent-insurance company, RW.1 was

examined and Ex.B1 i.e., copy of insurance policy was marked.

9. The MACT, after considering the material and evidence

placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place

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

awarded a sum of Rs.5,73,000/- towards compensation to the

appellant.

10. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel

for appellant submitted that the MACT ought to have considered

five fracture injuries sustained by the appellant and also 50%

disability. Further, the MACT has failed to award any

compensation for pain and suffering and therefore, prayed for

enhancement of compensation.

LNA,J MACMA No.174 of 2015

11. The learned standing counsel for insurance company

submitted that the MACT has rightly awarded the compensation

towards injuries sustained by the claimant and the ground raised

by the appellant are untenable and no case is made out warranting

interference by this Court with the impugned award passed by the

MACT and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

12. With regard to the compensation, the MACT on considering

Exs.A3 to A9, had awarded the following amounts:

i) Pain and suffering:

The MACT came to conclusion that appellant suffered five

grievous and hence, awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- for each

injury, aggregating to Rs.1,00,000/-.

ii) Expenditure towards treatment:

The MACT has considered Ex.A6-discharge bill from

Kamineni Hospital for Rs.65,000/-, Ex.A7-discharge bill from Raj

Hospital for Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.A8-bunch of medical bills for

Rs.33,000/- and also estimated costs of future operation at

Rs.41,000/- and thus, awarded an amount of Rs.2,38,000/-

expenditure towards treatment.

LNA,J MACMA No.174 of 2015

iii) Loss of earnings:

The MACT has considered the monthly earnings of the

deceased as Rs.6,000/- and awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/-

towards loss of earnings for five months and also awarded an

amount of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges, totaling

Rs.35,000/- towards loss of earnings.

iv. Disability:

With regard to disability, the appellant examined P.W.2 i.e.,

Doctor, who issued Ex.A10-disability certificate, as per which, the

disability is shown as 50%. During the cross-examination, P.w.2

admitted that the condition of the deceased was satisfactory and

all injuries were also healed. Therefore, the MACT awarded a sum

of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of disability.

13. In considered view of this Court, the MACT had awarded just

and proper compensation to the appellant and there is no material

or ground to interfere with the award passed by the MACT.

Therefore, the Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

LNA,J MACMA No.174 of 2015

14. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.

[[

____________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 29.09.2023 kkm