CMA/1996/2003 of Gorre Seetharamaiah Vs M/s. Road Co. Private Limited on 30 December 2010

JUDGMENT:

This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the petitioner-claimant against the judgment and decree of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal, Guntur, in O.P.No.649/1993, dated 11.07.1997.

2. Heard.

3. The brief facts are as follows:

On 28.01.1992 at about 11.30 a.m. while the petitioner wastraveling in lorry bearing No.AP.7U 1086 along with load of paddybags from Pedakurapadu village to Sattenapalli, nearPedamakkena village, the driver of the lorry drove it in high speedin a rash and negligent manner and the lorry turned turtle, as aresult, the petitioner received injuries to his right hand. Immediately, he was shifted to Government General Hospital,Guntur. A case in Cr.No.10 of 1992 was registered for theaccident. The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.55,000/-contending that he was earning Rs.35/- to Rs.40/- per day as acooli, aged about 26 years. The first respondent remained exparteand the second respondent insurance company filed its counterdenying the petition averments.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues wereframed:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash andnegligent driving of the lorry No.A.P.7U.1086 by itsdriver?2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, andif so, to what amount?3.To what relief?negligent driving of the lorry No.A.P.7U.1086 by itsdriver?2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, andif so, to what amount?3.To what relief?

5. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examinedand Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, nooral or documentary evidence was adduced. On the basis of thematerial on record, the court below granted compensation ofRs.14,000/-. Aggrieved by the above quantum, the present appealis filed by the petitioner-claimant.

6. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are anygrounds to enhance the compensation?

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner contendedthat the petitioner suffered some permanent disability due toaccident and his right hand was fractured above the elbow and heis not able to attend his work as earlier as coolly and he spentsubstantial amount towards medicines and he took treatment asinpatient in Government Hospital from 28.01.1992 to 19.02.1992and later also he took treatment in a private hospital. During theperiod of treatment, he spent substantial amount for medicines,but meager amount was granted by the court below.

8. The trial Court relying on Ex.A2, the wound certificateissued by the doctor who treated the petitioner, which shows thatthe petitioner suffered only one grievous injury and two simpleinjuries, and the disability suffered by the petitioner is only 15%,granted compensation of Rs.7000/- towards permanent and partialdisability, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of earning capacity andRs.2,000/- towards pain and suffering.

9. Considering the submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner-appellant and on perusing the impugnedjudgment, I am inclined to grant another amount of Rs.16,000/-towards additional compensation. Accordingly, the compensationawarded by the Court below is enhanced from Rs.14,000/- to Rs.30,000/-.

10. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is partly allowed. Interest onthe enhanced amount of compensation shall be at 6% per annum. No costs.

______________________

P. SWAROOP REDDY, J.

30[th] December 2010,Rns