Telangana High Court
MACMA/3635/2005 of S.Amarjeet Singh Makhija Vs K.Mallikarjun Rao on 30 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 3635 OF 2005 Dated: 30.12.2010 Between: S.Amarjeet Singh Makhija ... APPELLANT AND K.Mallikarjun Rao and another ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 3635 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Dated: 30.12.2010
Between:
S.Amarjeet Singh Makhija
AND
... APPELLANT
K.Mallikarjun Rao and another
... RESPONDENTS
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:
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988is directed against the order dated 15-09-2004 in O.P No. 1846 of2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ChiefJudge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.
The claimant is the appellant herein who filed O.P before theTribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuriessustained by him in an accident. He pleaded that he is a proprietor ofMakhija Steels earning Rs.10,000/- per month. While so, on29.05.2000, at about 8.30 A.M. when he was proceeding on hisscooter bearing No. AP 11 G 1663 from Bairamalguda towardsSanthoshnagar and by the time he reached Karmanghat Cross Roads,the driver of the scooter bearing No. AP 11 F 2123, owned byrespondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2 came from behindin a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, due to whichhe fell down and sustained fracture of both bones of left leg and otherinjuries.
The first respondent remained ex parte before the court below. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed the counterdenying all the material allegations.
On the strength of the rival pleadings, the learned judge framednecessary issues as to whether the appellant sustained injuries in theaccident which took place due to rash and negligent driving of thedriver of scooter bearing No. AP 11 F 2123 and whether the appellantis entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom andto what relief he is entitled to.
On behalf of the appellant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined andExs.A-1 to A-14 were marked and Ex.B-1 Insurance Policy wasmarked on behalf of the respondent – Insurance Company.
On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidenceavailable on record, the Tribunal answered the first and second issuesin favour of the appellant and as regards the third issue, an amount ofRs.80,000/- was awarded towards compensation. Being dissatisfiedwith the amount of compensation granted by the learned Judge, thepresent appeal is filed by the appellant.
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that thelearned Judge has failed to consider that the appellant was abusinessman and he has sustained loss for three months in businessduring the period of hospitalisation and treatment and that the Tribunalhas awarded only Rs.80,000/- as against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/- ofthe appellant which is on lower side and, therefore, the same needs tobe enhanced.
The learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Companycontends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is quitereasonable and needs no interference.
There is no dispute with regard to rash and negligent driving bythe driver of the crime vehicle. The Tribunal has not granted anyamount towards loss of future income in view of the fact that the doctorwho was examined as PW2 did not state anything with regard to the
disability sustained by the appellant. But as seen from the record, dueto the accident, the appellant was admitted in the hospital on29.05.2000 and was inpatient till 02.06.2000 and for three months hecould not walk. According to the appellant, he was earningRs.10,000/- per month from his business and due to his non attendingto his business for the said period, he sustained severe loss. In viewof the fact that the appellant could not attend to his business for threemonths and if we take the income of the appellant at Rs.6000/- permonth, for three months, the loss of income during the period ofhospitalisation and treatment would come to Rs.18,000/- which isrounded off to Rs.20,000/-. Apart from the same, since the doctor whowas examined as PW2 deposed that the appellant sustained a fractureon left knee joint and the upper end of tibia was depressed, theappellant is granted Rs.10,000/- each for the said fracture anddepression of tibia.
Thus, apart from the amount awarded by the Tribunal, theappellant is entitled to additional sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss ofearnings during the period of hospitalisation and treatment andanother sum of Rs.20,000/- for the injuries sustained by him as statedsupra. Therefore, in all, the compensation comes to Rs. 1,20,000/-.Thus, the compensation awarded by learned Judge is enhanced fromRs.80,000/- to Rs.1,20,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carryinterest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal isallowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs.
GHULAM MOHAMMED, J
Dt. 30.12.2010