Telangana High Court
Nookapangu Bhagyavathi vs Fateh Singh And 2 Ors on 29 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A.No.1085 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the injured questioning the
order and decree, dated 18.06.2010 in O.P.No.1293 of 2007 on
the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-
cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, the
Tribunal).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been
referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed a
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act
claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries
sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on
12.09.2007. It is stated that on the fateful day, while the
claimant was walking on Gudur to Miryalaguda on extreme
left side and when she reached opposite to Srikar Rice Mill at
KS,J
Macma_1085_2016
the outskirts of Gudur village, at about 06:00 a.m., one lorry
bearing No. HR 55 E 4098, owned by respondent No. 2,
insured with respondent No. 3, being driven by its driver-
respondent No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner at high
speed and dashed the claimant. As a result, the claimant
sustained fractures on her right hand, right leg, fracture of
nasal bone and grievous injuries to head, forehead and other
multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, she was
shifted to Government Area Hospital, Miryalaguda.
Thereafter, she took treatment for twenty (20) days as
inpatient in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. Later, she took
treatment at Sri Sai Krishna Specialty Hospital, East
Maredpally, Secunderabad. According to the claimant, she
was hale and healthy, aged 53 years and earning Rs.3,000/-
per month as agriculturist. Due to the said injuries, she
sustained permanent disability and lost his future earnings.
Thus, he laid the claim seeking compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- against the respondents.
KS,J
Macma_1085_2016
4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2
remained ex parte and whereas respondent No. 3 filed
counter denying petition averments, disputing the manner of
accident, nature of injuries sustained by the claimant,
avocation and income of the claimant and further contended
that the liability of the Insurance Company is as per the
terms and conditions of the policy. It is lastly contended that
the claim is exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the claim
petition.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
1. Whether the claimant sustained injuries due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
lorry bearing No.HR 56 E 4098?
2. Whether the claimant is entitled for
compensation and from whom?
3. To what relief?
KS,J
Macma_1085_2016
6. In order to prove the issues, PW.1 was examined and
Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked on behalf of the claimant. On
behalf of respondents, none were examined but Ex.B.1 was
marked.
7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the Tribunal has partly allowed the O.P.
and awarded an amount of Rs.17,000/- towards
compensation to the claimant along with proportionate costs
and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the
petition till the date of payment or realization against the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 jointly and severally.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant
and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3 -
Insurance Company. Perused the material available on
record.
KS,J
Macma_1085_2016
9. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has
submitted that although the claimant, by way of medical
evidence i.e. Ex.A.2, certified copy of medical certificate;
Ex.A.4, bunch of medical bills and prescriptions and Ex.A.5,
discharge card issued by Sri Sai Krishna Specialty Hospital,
Secunderabad, sufficiently established that the claimant
sustained fractures on right hand, fracture of right leg,
fracture of nasal bone and grievous injury on forehead, the
Tribunal has awarded meagre amount and further not
awarded any amount towards the grievous injuries.
10. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company
sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal
contending that considering the manner of accident and the
nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the learned
Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and the
same needs no interference by this Court.
KS,J
Macma_1085_2016
11. As regards the manner of accident, the Tribunal after
evaluating the evidence of PW. 1, coupled with the
documentary evidence available on record i.e., Exs.A.1, FIR
& A.3, Charge Sheet, held that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing
No.HR 55 E 4098. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal which are
based on appreciation of evidence in proper perspective.
Thus, the only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to
the quantum of compensation.
12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, a perusal of
medical record would reveal that the claimant sustained five
injuries i.e., sutured laceration over the ruit, nose and
forehead; laceration of upper lip and nose; sutured laceration
of right ankle; laceration of forearm and developed flop
necrosis of right forearm and right foot of the avulsed skin
flap. Considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded
KS,J
Macma_1085_2016
Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenditure; Rs.10,000/-
(Rs.2,000/- x 5) towards five injuries and Rs.2,000/- towards
pain and suffering, which appears to be meagre and needs to
be enhanced. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel
for the claimant, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount
towards grievous injury and future medical expenses.
Hence, this Court is inclined to award Rs.5,000/- each to five
injuries which in total works out to Rs.25,000/-; Rs.39,000/-
towards medical expenditure; Rs.20,000/- towards
transportation, extra nourishment, attendant charges;
Rs.8,000/- loss of earnings; Rs.50,000/- towards future
medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards pain and
suffering. Thus, in all the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,62,000/-.
13. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by
enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal from Rs.17,000/- to Rs.1,62,000/-. The enhanced
amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of
KS,J
Macma_1085_2016
petition till the date of realization to be payable by the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 jointly and severally. The amount
shall be deposited within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the
claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE K. SURENDER
29.02.2024
mmr
