Telangana High Court
Golla Muthenna vs M/S. G.B.R. Travels Private Limited And ... on 23 January, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
M.A.C.M.A No.54 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claim petitioner
challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in the Decree
and Judgment dated 24.04.2007 in O.P.No.381 of 2003 passed
by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
V Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad (hereinafter
'the Tribunal').
2. Heard Mr.K. Sai Krishna, learned counsel, representing
Mr.K.Venumadhav, learned counsel on record for the appellant
and Mr.Ch. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel, representing
Mr.P.Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel on record for respondent
No.2/Insurance Company.
3. The appellant's/claim petitioner's case in brief is that, on
18.11.2002 at about 5.30 PM, while he was proceeding on his
Scooter bearing No.AAJ-319, at Mentrajpally Village shivar one
APSRTC hired bus bearing No.AP-23-T-5100 came from
opposite direction in negligent manner, dashed the Scooter and
2 NTR,J
caused severe injuries to him. Thereafter, pleading medical
expenditure and disability, instituted claim for Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakhs only) as compensation. The Tribunal, on
considering the evidence awarded Rs.31,500/- with proportionate
costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till
realization against the owner and insurer of the bus/R1 and R2.
4. The solitary ground urged by the appellant is that the
Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary
evidence in awarding medical expenditure. The appellant as PW1
asserted in the witness box that Rs.33,000/- has been spent
towards medical expenditure. Doctor/PW2 deposed supporting
the final bill of Rs.19,500/- in Ex.A8, however, the Tribunal without
considering the testimony of the appellant about the medical
expenses incurred, granted Rs.19,500/- towards medical
expenditure and Rs.4,000/- towards extra diet and attendant
charges. Hence, prayed for reconsideration.
5. Learned counsel for the Insurer/R2 contended that medical
expenditure has been properly considered by the Tribunal and
leniently awarded the amount. Thus, no reason is made out for
inference in the appeal.
3 NTR,J
6. I have perused the materials on record.
7. As per the materials, PW1 had asserted that the medical
expenditure was about Rs.33,000/- including the final bill of
Rs.19,500/-. Nothing contra has been brought out in
cross-examination against this specific statement. Additionally,
having accepted the final bill, for medicine, the Tribunal by
observing the treatment it would cost only Rs.100/- per day and
for 40 days granted Rs.4,000/-, in all Rs.23,500/-. This reasoning
is lacking justification. Having regard to this position, granting
Rs.33,000/- as claimed towards medical expenditure, including
the final bill by maintaining other amounts awarded by the
Tribunal, is found appropriate.
8. Resultantly, the appellant would be entitled for the following
amounts as compensation:
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
(Rs.)
Medical expenses 33,000/-
Extra-diet and attendant charges 4,000/-
Pain and suffering 4,000/-
Loss of earnings 4,000/-
TOTAL 45,000/-
9. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by granting
Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand only) with
4 NTR,J
proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of the petition till realization. The
insurer/respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the differential
amount of compensation within one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. On deposit, the appellant is
permitted to withdraw the entire amount. In the above terms, the
impugned decree stands modified.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 23.01.2025.
krl
5 NTR,J
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
M.A.C.M.A No. 54 OF 2008
Dt.23-01-2025
krl
