Telangana High Court
Narendla Naresh vs Sri K. Krishna Goud And Another on 20 November, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.2579 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by
the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV
Addl. District Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in
O.P. No.2028 of 2001, dated 22.07.2005, the present appeal is
filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that Sri
Venkateshwar Varanasi, learned counsel for the appellant is no
more. Hence on 12.09.2024, this Court directed the Registry to
issue notice to the appellant. Pursuant to the said order, the
Registry sent notice to the appellant and the same was returned
with a postal endorsement as 'no such person in the house'. In
the event this Court issued a fresh notice, no fruitful purpose
would be served. The matter pertains to the year 2009. Hence,
this Court appointed Sri M.Kiran Reddy as Amicus Curiae to assist
the Court and as there is no representation on behalf of
respondent No.2-The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, this
Court appointed Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, to appear on behalf of
respondent No.2.
3. Brief facts of case:
3.1 On 09.10.1999 the appellant was going by the side of the
road by walk and when he reached near Vinayaknagar Hanuman
Temple at about 7-30 a.m., one Scooter bearing No.AP.25.E.8842
being driven by its rider came in a rash and negligent manner
with high speed and dashed the appellant. Due to which he
sustained fracture of skull, injury to left ear, multiple and grievous
injuries on face, fracture of ribs and other grievous injuries all
over the body. Immediately he was shifted to Government
Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad where he was treated as
inpatient. Thereafter he took treatment with private doctors and
incurred a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses. At the
time of accident, the appellant was aged about 15 years and
working as a milk vendor and earning Rs.3,000/- per month.
Thus, the appellant claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under
various heads against respondent Nos.1 and 2.
4. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on
record, the Tribunal has allowed the O.P. in part and awarded
compensation of Rs.5,500/- to be payable by the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
5. Heard Sri M.Kiran Reddy as Amicus Curiae and Sri
A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended
that though the appellant sustained grievous injuries and
examined PWs.1 and 2 and produced Exs.A1 to A6, the Tribunal
without considering the same, awarded meager amount of
Rs.5,500/-.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that
the Tribunal after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence on record, has rightly awarded an amount
of Rs.5,500/- towards compensation under all heads. Therefore,
the appellant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation as
claimed by him in this appeal.
8. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and perused the records. It is an undisputed
fact that due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of scooter
bearing No.AP.25.E.8842, the accident was taken place on
09.10.1999, as a result of which, the appellant has sustained
grievous injuries and was admitted in the Government Hospital,
Nizamabad on 9.10.1999 and he was discharged on 15.10.1999.
To prove the said factum, the appellant filed Ex.A3 copy of wound
certificate and Ex.A5 discharge card. However, the Tribunal has
disbelieved the same only on the ground that the appellant has
not examined the Doctor. Admittedly, there is no dispute
regarding the appellant's admission in the Government Hospital,
Nizamabad. As per Ex.A3 copy of wound certificate, the appellant
has sustained injury on right temporal region and injury on upper
lip left side. The Tribunal has awarded only an amount of
Rs.2,000/- for the injuries, which appears to be meager. The
appellant is a student and also working as milk vendor.
Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances
of the case and the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant,
this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled for
Rs.50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him, Rs.15,000/-
towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation
charges and Rs.10,000/- towards food and extra nourishment.
The appellant is also entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards litigation
expenses as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in V.Mekala v. M.Malathi and another1. Thus in all, the
appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.95,000/- under all
counts.
2014 (5) ALD 42 SC
9. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part enhancing
the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.5,500/- to Rs.95,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry
interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and
severally. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the
said amount without furnishing any security. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
Date: 20.11.2024
pgp
