Telangana High Court
MACMA/304/2007 of Venkata Narsamma Vs D.Dharmaji on 30 December 2014
Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.304 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: The injured claimant, preferred the appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- V Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad (for short, ’Tribunal’) in O.P No.591 of
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAOM.A.C.M.A. No.304 OF 2007
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:
The injured claimant, preferred the appeal, having beenaggrieved by the Order/Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad (for short, ’Tribunal’) inO.P No.591 of 2002 dated 21.11.2006, awarding compensation ofRs.36,000/- (Rupees thirty six thousand only) with interest at 7.5% perannum, as against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- as against therespondents 1 and 2 viz., the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle(jeep bearing No.AP 25 G 1649) for enhancement of compensation asprayed for in the claim petition under Sections 173 of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant (claimant).Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal not chosen toappear hence taken as heard and the learned standing counsel forrespondent No.2. Perused the material on record. The partieshereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake ofconvenience in the appeal.
3. The contentions in the grounds of appeal by the appellant (claimant) in nutshell as well as oral submissions of theclaimant that the Tribunal gravely erred in awarding meagrecompensation instead of awarding as prayed for by fixing permanentdisability by arriving multiple method, hence to allow the claim asprayed for.
4. Whereas it is the contention of the learned counsel for 2[nd] respondent—Insurer that the award of the Tribunal holds good forthis Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere, hence todismiss the appeal.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration are as follows:
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 on the manner of accident but forquantum of compensation. Now coming to the quantum ofcompensation as per Ex.A2—discharge ticket from GovernmentHospital, Nizamabad and Ex.A8—case sheet of the GovernmentHospital, Nizamabad with reference to evidence of PW.2—Doctor,who treated the injured—PW.1, stated that she sustained fracture ofboth bones of right legs and injuries on the right foot and right ankle.7. Even for the compound fracture Rs.25,000/- minimum isawarded and Rs.5,000/- for the two simple injuries and Rs.10,000/- formedical expenses, treatment, extra nourishment, Rs.10,000/- for lossof earnings, attendant charges and transport charges, in all it comes toRs.50,000/- . Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.
Point No.2:
8. In the result the appeal is allowed by enhancing thecompensation from Rs.36,000/- (Rupees thirty six thousand only) toRs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with joint liability withinterest at 7.5% per annum. The rest of the terms awarded by theTribunal holds good. No costs.
9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appealshall stand closed.
30[th] December, 2014Knl
_____________________
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.304 OF 2007
knl
30[th] December, 2014