Telangana High Court
CMA/407/2003 of Syed Mustafa Ali Vs Sri Mohd. Ameeruz Zama on 30 December 2010
P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.407 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.728 of 1996 vide judgment dated 13-10-1999 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge, Nizamabad,
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDYCIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.407 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:
Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded inO.P. No.728 of 1996 vide judgment dated 13-10-1999 by the learnedChairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge,Nizamabad, claimant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appealseeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The owner of the jeep bearing No.API – 411 involved in theaccident and its insurer are respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in theO.P. before the Tribunal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred toas arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal.
4. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 28-03-1995 at about 9-45 AM while he was proceeding as pillion rideron the scooter bearing No.AP25 – A – 7238, near Kalpana Mess at APSRTC Bus stand, Bhainsa, jeep bearing No.API – 411, coming inthe opposite way, being driven by its driver in the wrong direction andin a rash and negligent manner and high speed, dashed against thescooter, as a result, he sustained fracture of his right leg and injuries tochest, back, waist and both hands. Immediately, he was shifted toGovernment Hospital, Bhainsa, where he was treated as inpatient. Hetook treatement from the private doctors also and spent Rs.75,000/- fortreatment. In spite of the treatment, still he is suffering pain in his leg. Due to the injuries and fracture, he became permanently disabled andunable to do any work and his earning capacity is affected. He wasaged 38 years and was working as electrician and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. Hence, he claimed a compensation ofRs.2,00,000/-.
5. Respondent No.1, the owner of the jeep involved in theaccident, remained ex parte.
6. Respondent No.2, insurer of the above jeep, 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 was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Jeep API – 411 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If soto what amount and from whom?to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?”
8. To prove his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1and the doctor, who treated him, as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 toA-8.
On behalf of the insurance company, no oral or documentary evidencewas adduced.
9. Based on the evidence available on record and after anelaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded acompensation of Rs.75,000/- to the claimant against both therespondents for payment of compensation jointly and severally withinterest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimantpreferred this appeal.
10. 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.
11. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether thecompensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is inadequate ?
12. According to the claimant as PW.1, after the accident heunderwent surgery at Sathyasri Orthopaedic Nursing Home,Nizamabad as an inpatient and there he spent Rs.6,500/- for thesurgery and he spent Rs.45,000/- towards medicines. He filed 18medical bills marked as Ex.A-2 for Rs.9,000/-. Exs.A-4 X-ray filmshows fracture of both bones of his right leg. Ex.A-1 medical certificateshows that he suffered three simple injuries apart from a grievousinjury.
13. The evidence of PW.2, the medical practitioner who treatedthe claimant, shows that claimant sustained 35% disability andmovements of his right ankle and right knee are partially restricted. Now he cannot stand for long time on the right leg.
14. In the circumstances, the Tribunal awarded a compensationof Rs.75,000/- to the claimant and the same cannot be said to beinadequate. However, as the evidence of the medical officer, PW.2, is that there was restriction of movements of right ankle and right kneeof the claimant and that the Tribunal has not taken the same intoconsideration while computing and awarding compensation, a littlemore compensation can be awarded to the claimant. Hence, I am ofthe view that awarding another Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousandonly) to the claimant would meet the ends of justice and the same isaccordingly awarded. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.10,000/-. Thus, the compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded by theTribunal is enhanced to Rs.85,000/-. The rate of interest on theenhanced compensation shall be at 6% per annum from the date ofO.P. till realization. The claimant is permitted to withdraw theenhanced compensation soon after its deposit along with the accruedinterest.
15. With the above enhancement in quantum of compensationand the directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs.
____________________
P. SWAROOP REDDY, J
December 30, 2010.
PV