Telangana High Court
Polala Anitha vs M. Venkat Reddy on 8 January, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
M.A.C.M.A No. 36 OF 2025
JUDGMENT:
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claim petitioner
challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in the Decree
and Judgment dated 27.01.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.903 of 2007
passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V
Additional District Judge (II-FTC), Warangal (hereinafter 'the
Tribunal').
2. Heard Mr. M. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr.V.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel representing
Ms.A.Malathi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and
3/Insurance Company.
3. The appellant's case in brief is that, on 27.06.2006 while
the petitioner along with her husband proceeding on Bus bearing
No.AP-15W-9979 at Machapur Village, Pasra Mandal of
Warangal District, the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed a culvert. The accident resulted in
grievous injuries to the appellant on her left clavicle, nasal bone,
2 NTR,J
8th and 9th ribs of chest left side, injury on right leg, forehead and
other injuries all over the body. After the treatment, the petitioner
filed claim seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Tribunal,
on considering the evidence, awarded Rs.71,000/- (Rupees
Seventy one thousand only) as compensation with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization
against respondent Nos.1 to 3/owner and insurer of the Bus.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the
Tribunal had erred in appreciating the materials placed on record
to prove the injuries and the disability suffered and its affect on
the petitioner's avocation. Further, the medical bills/Ex.A6 were
disregarded and the Tribunal ought to have held that the disability
would completely affect her future earnings. Thus, prayed for
reassessment and enhancement of the compensation amount.
5. Learned counsel for the insurer/respondent Nos.2 and 3
has pleaded in support of the impugned award. He submits that
the Tribunal had leniently considered the claim of the petitioner
and reasonable amount has been granted and no reasonable
ground is made out in the appeal to interfere with the impugned
award.
3 NTR,J
6. On the rival contentions, the point that arises for
determination is:
Whether the compensation amount awarded
by the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable?
I have perused the materials on record and considered the
submissions of learned counsel.
7. As the findings on the aspects of negligence and liability of
the respondents recorded by the Tribunal remained
unchallenged, these factors attained finality.
8. The evidence of the appellant as PW-1, the Doctor/PW2
and the Injury Certificate/Ex.A-3 are establishing that the
appellant suffered fracture of clavicle bone of left shoulder,
fracture of nasal bone, fracture of 8th and 9th ribs of the chest left
side, abrasion 5x3 cms over the left leg and abrasion 3x3 cms
over forehead in the accident.
9. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.54,000/-
(Rupees fifty four thousand only) under the head of injuries.
Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the length of
4 NTR,J
treatment stated by the Doctor this amount is found on lower side,
as such granting Rs.1,20,000/- under the head of pain and
sufferings is found proper.
10. In regard to medical expenditure, the appellant filed bunch
of medical bills under Ex.A-6 for an amount of Rs.3,220/-. The
Tribunal considering these bills awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/-
towards medicines and attendant charges. Having regard to
possible expenses, Rs.8,500/- is awarded under this head.
Additionally, Rs.5,000/- each is granted under the heads of extra-
nourishment and transportation.
11. Further, considering the evidence of the Doctor/PW2 and
the injuries suffered and the advised bed rest, inability of the
petitioner to attend any avocation during the period is clear and
to compensate loss of earnings Rs.4,500/- is granted.
12. Resultantly, the appellant is entitled for the following
amounts as compensation:
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (Rs.)
Pain and sufferance (injuries) 1,20,000/-
Loss of earnings during the treatment
period 4,500
Medical Expenditure (including bills) and 8,500/-
attendant charges
5 NTR,J
Extra-nourishment 5,000/-
Transportation and miscellaneous 5,000/-
TOTAL 1,43,000
13. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by granting
Rs.1,43,000/- (Rupees One lakh Forty three thousand only) with
costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. However, the
appellant is not entitled for interest for the delay of 645 days in
filing the Appeal as ordered by this Court on 03.01.2025 in
I.A.No.1 of 2013. The liability of respondents and other terms
stipulated in the impugned judgment are maintained. The
respondents are 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 entire amount. Accordingly, the impugned decree
stands modified.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 08.01.2025.
krl
