MACMA/287/2007 of The United India India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Kasam Srinivas, on 31 December 2014

JUDGMENT :

The 2[nd] respondent-insurer among the two respondentsincluding the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 25 T 2717 in the claimfiled by the injured-claimant, cleaner of the said lorry, under saidowner in O.P. no.1744 of 2004 claiming compensation ofRs.3,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (forshort, ‘the Act’) though insignificantly added the other provisions ofSections 163-A and 140 of the Act also since taken by the Tribunalunder Section 166 of the Act, though not in specific terms, havingawarded Rs.1,76,500/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. by award dated18.07.2006 of which Rs.1,40,000/- towards medical expenses knownproved from the bills, prescriptions and receipts covered by Exs.A-6to A-10 with reference to evidence of P.W-2 doctor as well as theinjured P.W-1 and the other sum of Rs.29,000/- including for thefracture and two simple injuries, impugning the said quantum asexcessive, exorbitant and without any basis in granting medical billsof Rs.1,20,812/- with reference to the bills apart from future operationrequirements to reduce the same sought for in the appeal.

2) The learned counsel for the insurer submits that when theclaimant is claiming working as a cleaner it is highly not acceptableof he incurred the medical expenditure as claimed of Rs.1,20,812/-and these are escalations for the false claim to mulct the insurer withliability, thereby to reduce for no requirement of such expenditure forthe fracture with two simple injuries. Whereas, it is the contention ofthe learned counsel for the claimant that though there are no cross-objections, the finding of the tribunal when open including to attack tosubstantiate the quantum on one ground or the other and but for no cross-objections, the compensation to enhance, hence to dismissthe appeal.

3) Heard Sri P.Gopal Das the learned standing counsel for theappellant and Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary learned counsel for theclaimant. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafterare referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake ofconvenience in the appeal.

4) Now the points that arise for consideration in the appealare:

1. Whether the quantum of compensation is excessive toreduce and with what observations?reduce and with what observations?

2. To what result?

POINT No.1:

5) There is no dispute on the manner of accident of outcomeof rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry of the 1[st]respondent insured with the 2[nd] respondent which dashed a roadside electrical transformer from which the claimant injured, ascleaner proved from the evidence and charge sheet also refers thesame, sustained the injury viz., fracture to mandible left, fracture ofleft ankle, fracture of masila left ORT-II bilateral that is also deposedby P.W-2 doctor who treated him with reference to Exs.A-3 to A-5.

6) Now, coming to the quantum of compensation as laid down by the Apex Court in Ranjana Prakash V. Divisional Manager[[1]]even no cross-objections or independent appeal, the Respondent tothe appeal can substantiate the quantum on one ground or other. Thus, the claimants are entitled to ask the Court to re-appreciate onthe quantum of compensation awarded. For the three fracturesreferred supra, it requires minimum compensation of Rs.60,000/- andwhat all the Tribunal including for medical expenses, treatment, loss of earnings, extra nourishment, attendant and transport charges andthe medical bills, proved from the evidence of P.W-2, doctor, withreference to Exs.A-6 to A-10 of Rs.1,20,812/-, thereby it requires nointerference for any reason. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

POINT No.2:

costs.

7) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to

8) Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shallstand closed.

Date: 31-12-2014ksh

_______________________

Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J

[1]2011(8) SCALE 240