Telangana High Court
CMA/1689/2001 of Ahmed Hussain Vs Bohar Anand Kumar on 29 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1689 of 2001 JUDGMENT: Ahmed Hussain, who is the deceased first appellant, the husband of the second appellant and the father of appellants 3 to 5, was doing business in goat-skin at Zaheerabad. On 13.01.1996, he was proceeding to Ranjole Village
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYC.M.A.No.1689 of 2001
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
Ahmed Hussain, who is the deceased first appellant, thehusband of the second appellant and the father of appellants 3 to 5,was doing business in goat-skin at Zaheerabad. On 13.01.1996, hewas proceeding to Ranjole Village on a bicycle. A car bearingNo.WB-02-C-5162 driven by the first respondent, owned byrespondents 2 and 3 and insured with the fourth respondent is said tohave dashed against him. It is stated that he received fracture injuriesto left leg and the bicycle was completely damaged. He filedO.P.No.380 of 1996 before the Motor Vehicles Accidents ClaimsTribunal cum District Judge, Medak, claiming a sum of Rs.75,000/- ascompensation. He furnished the particulars of treatment taken andexpenditure incurred for the injuries.
The O.P was opposed by respondents 1, 2 and 4. They filedseparate counters denying the responsibility. Their common case wasthat the accident did not occur on account of any rashness on the partof the first respondent and that the injuries received by the firstappellant were simple in nature.
After deposing as P.W.1, Ahmed Hussain died and his legalrepresentatives – appellants 2 to 5 were brought on record.
Through its order dated 27.03.2001, the Tribunal awarded asum of Rs.11,000/- towards compensation. Not satisfied with that, theappellants approached this Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learnedStanding Counsel for the fourth respondent.
The compensation was claimed by the first appellant for theinjuries received by him in the accident. The occurrence of accidentand the fact that he received injuries therein was amply proved byfiling Exs.A.1 to A.5, namely, certified copies of F.I.R, charge sheet,additional information report, medical certificate and discharge card.
In his deposition, P.W.1 stated that he received fracture injury tothe left leg, plaster of paris was applied twice and he was bed riddenfor four months. Though a suggestion was made to the effect thatplaster of paris was not applied, Ex.A.5, which contains a photograph,depicts the first appellant having been applied the plaster of paris forthe entire left leg from toe to hip. The suffering on account of this due tothe accident is not difficult to assess.
For the grievous injury, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awardedtowards pain and suffering. In the instant case, suffering lasted formonths together and Rs.20,000/- can safely be awarded. The Tribunalawarded Rs.1,000/- towards medical expenditure. For a treatmentspread over for four months not less than Rs.10,000/- needs to beawarded. No amount was awarded for loss of earning and extranourishment. This Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.15,000/- canbe awarded on those counts. Though the first appellant died duringthe pendency of the O.P, the record does not disclose that his deathwas on account of the injuries.
For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal isallowed and the compensation is enhanced to Rs.45,000/-. Theenhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum. Theappellants shall be entitled to equal shares in the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, JDate: 29.12.2011va