MACMA/93/2007 of Akthar Bee Vs Subash Marwada on 30 December 2014

JUDGMENT:

The injured claimant, filed this appeal aggrieved by theorder/award dated 13.07.2006 passed in O.P.No.592 of 2001 on thefile of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-III Additional DistrictJudge (FTC), Nizamabad (for short, ’Tribunal’), aged about 25 yearsas per Exs.A2 and A3—discharge cards of the hospital at the time ofaccident, dated 02.11.2000, while traveling in the jeep of 1[st]respondent insured with 2[nd] respondent bearing No.MH 26 C 1104,due to rash and negligent driving of jeep driver maintaining the claimfor Rs.2 lakhs since awarded Rs.64,000/- with interest at 7.5% perannum and the said quantum of compensation is utterly low and forenhancement of compensation as prayed for in the claim petition underSections 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’).

2. Heard learned counsel for appellant and Respondent No.1remained ex parte before the Tribunal not chosen to appear hencetaken as heard and the learned standing counsel for respondent No.2.Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred toas arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in theappeal.

3. The contentions of the appellant in the grounds of appealthat the tribunal gravely erred in granting utterly low amount ignoringthe multiple injuries sustained by him. Learned counsel for theappellant reiterated the same in seeking enhancement with referenceto material on record covered under Ex.A1 to A49 in particular Ex.C-2—disability certificate, Ex.C1—case sheet equal to Ex.A2 andA3 part of it

4. Whereas it is the contention of counsel for the respondentNo.2 that the award of the Tribunal holds good this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere, hence to dismiss the appeal.

5. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:

1. Whether the quantum of compensation is utterly low, unjustand if so what is the just compensation?and if so what is the just compensation?

2. To what result?

Point No.1:

6. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of accidentand involvement of vehicle and the risk covered by Ex.A-47 policy forthe inmates of the jeep but for the quantum of compensation.

7. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, Ex.C1—casesheet shows there is compound fracture of right humerous with radialnervepalsy and fracture of right ulna and multiple fractures to the skulland other parts of the body and shifted to Government Hospital, Bodanwhile undergoing treatment, she was referred to the GovernmentHospital, Nizamabad for better treatment where operation wasconducted and there was mal union since Ex.C2 disability certificateissued by Medical Board, Nizamabad. In fact, the injured claimed isresident of Nanded District temporarily residing at Nizamabad. Aperusal of the disability certificate shows there are restrictivemovements of the right upper limb in estimating 30% disability andthere is no other data in arriving disability. There is nothing even tosay for medico legal purpose as contended by the learned counsel forrespondent No.2. However, the fact remains from the bone fractureand mal union revealed from the X-ray, Ex.A46 photograph part ofExs.A1 to A49 and the photo fixed to the disability certificate even totake 20% permanent disability. The injured even aged about 25 yearsfrom Exs.A2 and A3 discharge cards, the multiplier applicable is 17 forthe age above 26 years, as on the date of accident the injured earningRs.3,000/- per month, as per Latha Wadhwa vs State of Bihar[[1]]20% of earnings of injured comes to Rs.600/-(Rs.3,000 X 20%). Thus,

the loss of earnings of the injured is arrived at Rs.1,22,400/- (Rs.600/-X12 X 17). Apart from it, Rs.30,000/- awarded for bone fracture andpain and sufferance and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses eventhe treatment is free in the Government Hospital, Rs.10,000/- towardsloss of earnings, attendant charges, transport charges and extranourishment, in all it comes to Rs.1,72,400/- is the just compensationto award compensation. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2:

8. In the result, appeal is partly allowed by enhancing thecompensation from Rs.64,000/- (Rupees sixty four thousand only) toRs.1,72,400/- (Rupees one lakh Seventy two thousand four hundredonly) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till thedate of realization. Rest of the terms of the award holds good. Noorder as to costs.

9. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, in this appealshall stand closed.

Date:30-12-2014

knl

_______________________

Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

knl

[1]AIR 2001 SC 3218

M.A.C.M.A.No.93 OF 2007

Date:30-12-2014