CMA/518/2003 of Ampolu Venkata Ramana, Vs Sri Sundaramurtyreddy Chokkalingam, on 30 December 2010

JUDGMENT:

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded bythe Tribunal in O.P.No.505 of 2002 vide order dated 21-06-2002 by thelearned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – AdditionalDistrict Judge, Vizianagaram, claimant preferred this CivilMiscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The driver of the lorry bearing No.TV67 – W – 4195 involvedin the accident its owner and insurer are respondent Nos.1 to 3respectively in the O.P. before the Tribunal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to asarrayed in the O.P.

4. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 09-10-1999 while he was going to Pusapatirega on the scooterbearing No.ATX – 4619 along with one Majji Satyanarayana, nearSattemma Temple, Pydi Bheemavaram, the lorry bearing No.TV67 –W – 4195 coming in the opposite direction being driven by its driver ina rash and negligent manner and at high speed, dashed against thescooter, as a result, claimant sustained injuries and another occupantof the scooter died on the spot due to the injuries sustained by him. Immediately, claimant was admitted in Government Hospital,Srikakulam and from there he was shifted to C.D.R. Hospital,Visakhapatnam. He sustained fracture of jaw and lost seven (7) teethapart from several minor injuries. Hence, he claimed a compensationof Rs.1,00,000/-.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, driver and owner of the lorryinvolved in the accident, remained ex parte.

6. Respondent No.3, insurer of the above lorry, alone filed itscounter denying the case of the claimant and also its liability forpayment of compensation.

7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed fortrial by the Tribunal:

“1. Whether the accident and the injuries of the petitioner are due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.T N

67 W 4195 by its driver-R.1 herein ?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, ifso, from which of the respondents ?so, from which of the respondents ?

3. To what relief ?”

8. To prove his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1and also examined the doctor, who treated him, as PW.2 and gotmarked Exs.A-1 to A-12 apart from Ex.X-1. On behalf of therespondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

9. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborateconsideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a compensation ofRs.43,500/- to the claimant against all the respondents for payment ofcompensation jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum fromthe date of petition till realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantumof compensation, claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhancementof compensation.

10. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimant,appellant, is that apart from suffering certain minor and simple injuries, claimant sustained serious injuries to his mouth i.e., fracture of rightlower jaw and losing seven (7) teeth. He also contends that claimantwas hospitalized for a substantial period, suffered pain and sufferingand permanent disability and developed numbness of lower lip, assuch, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is totallyinadequate.

11. Since neither of the respondents preferred any appeal orcross-objections, there is no need to decide the question of proving theaccident and their liability for payment of compensation.

12. Hence, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant isinadequate ?

13. On the date of accident, claimant was aged 29 years. According to him, he lost pay for two and half months as he wasunable to do any work during that period. He was drawing a salary ofRs.2,200/- a month. So far as the injuries are concerned, he sustainedfracture of right jaw and lost seven teeth. As per Ex.A-2, medicalcertificate, claimant sustained abrasion, lost skin on the left upper armlateral side, laceration of 3” x ½” x 1” on the right side of lower jaw withdepression and the blood was coming out from the mouth. There was fracture of right mandible.

14. The evidence of the medical officer, PW.2, is that claimantsustained fracture of right lower jaw, segments were loosened andthere was depression on the face. On 13-10-1999 at 6-30 PM, undergeneral anesthesia, open reduction was done, loose fracturedsegments were stabilized with the help of mine plate andostosynthesis bone plates. Fracture segments were fixed withinterarch maxillary fixation.

The claimant was discharged from the hospital on 17-10-1999 with anadvise to take further treatement. Further, the claimant sustained 25% partial disability and developed numbness in lower lip.

15. Thus, there is no dispute about the claimant sustainingfracture of right lower jaw, which is a serious injury causing deformityof the face also to some extent.

16. In the circumstances, I am of the view that awarding a totalcompensation of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only) tothe claimant towards permanent disability suffered by him due tofracture of right jaw, losing seven teeth, disfiguration of the face, painand suffering, medicines, loss of income, transportation and extranourishment etc., would meet the ends of justice and the same isaccordingly awarded.

17. Thus, the compensation of Rs.43,500/- awarded by theTribunal to the claimant is enhanced to Rs.75,000/-. The rate ofinterest on the enhanced compensation shall be at 6% per annum fromthe date of O.P. till realization. It is made clear that the rate of intereston the compensation of Rs.43,500/- awarded by the Tribunal shall beat 9% per annum only as ordered by the Tribunal. The claimant ispermitted to withdraw the entire compensation soon after its depositalong with accrued interest.

18. With the above enhancement in the quantum ofcompensation and the directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal isallowed in part. No order as to costs.

___________________

December 30, 2010.PV