Telangana High Court
CMA/2044/2003 of Shaik Janimiya Vs M. Veerabhadra Rao on 30 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.2044 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the petitioner- claimant against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda, in O.P.No.1149/2001, dated 11.07.2002. 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts are as
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOPREDDY
C.M.A.No.2044 of 2003
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 civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the petitioner-claimant against the judgment and decree of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal, Nalgonda, in O.P.No.1149/2001, dated11.07.2002.
2. Heard.
3. The brief facts are as follows:
On 18.08.2001 when the petitioner-claimant was going onroad by walk at Munagala, near Solipuram Narsi Reddy shop TataVan bearing No.AP.24.T.9186 came in high speed in a rash andnegligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. As a result,he fell down and van ran over his right leg and he receivedgrievous injury and his leg was amputated upto right thigh. Hewas aged 40 years and earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a cook ina hotel. He claimed compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs. The firstrespondent remained exparte and the second respondentinsurance company filed its counter denying the petitioneraverments.
4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues wereframed:
1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the MotorVehicle Accident, and if so, whether the accidentoccurred due to the rash and negligent driving by thedriver of the Van bearing No.AP.24.T.9186?Vehicle Accident, and if so, whether the accidentoccurred due to the rash and negligent driving by thedriver of the Van bearing No.AP.24.T.9186?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation,If so, to what amount and by whom it should be paid?If so, to what amount and by whom it should be paid?3.To what relief?
5. On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 was examined andExs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oralevidence was adduced and Ex.B1 insurance policy was marked. On the basis of the material on record, the court below grantedcompensation of Rs.1.00 lakh. Aggrieved by the above quantum,the present appeal is filed by the petitioner-claimant.
6. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are anygrounds to enhance the compensation?
7. According to the finding of the court below as recorded inPara 7 of the judgment impugned, the petitioner filed dischargesummary, Ex.A3, which shows that he was admitted on19.08.2001 in Charithasri Hospital and was discharged on30.08.2001. There was amputation of right leg. Evidently, thepetitioner was aged 50 years, as per discharge summary, Ex.A3. He has not produced any material to show that he was earningRs.3,000/- by working as a cook in a hotel, as such, his incomeshould be taken at Rs.900/- as a labourer and the loss of earningsare difficult to be calculated in view of the age of the petitioner. Therefore, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was granted for pain andsuffering, Rs.15,000/- for medical expenses and Rs.60,000/-towards disability and loss of earnings. Thus, a total of Rs.1.00lakh was awarded as compensation to the petitioner-appellant.
8. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant,the amount of compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh awarded in total isinadequate. It is a case of 45 years old person sufferingamputation of right leg above knee, which causes inconveniencethroughout his life loosing so many amenities in life. His incomedrastically comes down and he must have suffered pain at thetime of accident and at the time of amputation and treatment and he must have spent money for treatment and attendant chargesand extra nourishment etc. Thus, granting of an amount ofRs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.15,000/- towardsmedical expenses may be reasonable. But, nothing was grantedtowards attendant charges and extra nourishment. It is a case,where the petitioner requires assistance through out his life forseveral things. Considering all these circumstances, it is a fitcase to award the total compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs claimed bythe petitioner-claimant.
9. The C.M.A. is accordingly allowed and the compensationis enhanced from Rs.1.00 lakh to Rs.2.00 lakhs. Interest on theenhanced amount of compensation shall be at 6% per annum. Theenhanced amount of compensation shall be kept in fixed depositand the petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw the interest everymonth and the principal amount shall be payable to the petitionerafter five years from the date of deposit. No costs.
30[th] December 2010,Rns
______________________
P. SWAROOP REDDY, J.