CMA/947/2001 of G.Jangaiah, Vs J.Sai Udayakanth, on 31 December 2009

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant, who is aprofessional tractor driver, who was injured in the accidentthat occurred on 1.10.1997 and on that day when theclaimant was driving the tractor, the offending vehicletanker bearing No.AP13T 3530 said to have dashedagainst the tractor, resulting in injuries to the claimantrequiring his hospitalization and treatment at OsmaniaGeneral Hospital for four or five days. The present claim forcompensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was sought in O.P.No.647of 1998 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga ReddyDistrict at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, against first and secondrespondents, who are the owner and insurer of theoffending vehicle. In the said O.P., the Tribunal below onconsideration of the entire evidence came to theconclusion that the offending vehicle was driven in a rashand negligent manner and awarded compensation ofRs.25,000/- with interest thereon at 12% per annum. TheTribunal found that there was no disability and the fractureinjury was only grievous one, which was also healed, and therefore awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain andsuffering and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards medicalexpenses and attendance with interest at 12% per annum. Dissatisfied to the extent of disallowing the rest of the claim,the present appeal is filed.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides.

Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon theevidence of P.W.2, Orthopedic Surgeon in OsmaniaGeneral Hospital, who examined and issued Ex.A-4 casesheet relating to the treatment, and contends that even asper the said Orthopedic Surgeon there is deformity on leftfoot and on account of metatarsal fracture the appellant’sprofession as driver of the tractor is affected and as thedoctor himself certifies that the appellant would havedifficulty in driving the tractor, he submits that somecompensation to that extent has not been granted by theTribunal below and therefore the appeal deserves to beallowed to that extent.

Learned counsel for the respondent – insurancecompany, however, submits that the claim for simpleinjuries received by the appellant has already beenconsidered by the Tribunal and it warrants no interferenceby this Court.

I have considered the rival contentions of both thelearned counsel and the evidence of P.W.2, OrthopedicSurgeon, who examined the appellant and who gaveevidence with reference to Ex.A-4 case sheet. No doubt,there is deformity in the left foot and the X-ray also showsfracture of 2[nd] and 3[rd] metatarsal balls. P.W.2, who examined the claimant, states that though the fractures areunited the claimant complains of pain and difficulty inwalking. Exs.A-5 is the X-ray and Ex.A-6 is the woundcertificate. The said evidence therefore clearly shows thatthe appellant is affected on account of the said accident. The Tribunal below has granted a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards pain and suffering. Therefore, interests of justicewould be met by taking into account the evidence of P.W.2,a further sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the claimant. The appeal is therefore allowed in part granting a furthersum of Rs.10,000/- as against Rs.20,000/- granted by theTribunal below towards pain and suffering and thecompensation to the extent of Rs.5000/- granted by theTribunal towards medical expenses and attendance needsno interference.

The appeal is therefore allowed in part. Theenhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annumfrom the date of claim till the date of realization. No orderas to costs.

_________________________

AFZULPURKAR, J.31.12.2009kpr

VILAS V.