Telangana High Court
MACMA/477/2007 of The Orinental Insurance Company Limited, Vs Cheppala Venkkavva, on 30 December 2013
MR JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO MACMA NO. 477 OF 2007 DATED: 30.12.2013 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited .. Appellant/R2 And Cheppala Venkavva and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO MACMA NO. 477 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO
MACMA NO. 477 OF 2007
DATED: 30.12.2013
Between:
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
And
.. Appellant/R2
Cheppala Venkavva and another
.. Respondents
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAOMACMA NO. 477 OF 2007
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 is directed against the Award dated 28.09.2006passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- IV-Additional District Judge, FTC, Nizamabad (for short ‘theTribunal’), in O.P.No.1694 of 2004, whereby the Tribunal awardedcompensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustainedby the claimant in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on10.09.2004.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referredto as arrayed in the Court below.
3. Aggrieved by the quantum of Award passed by the Tribunal,the insurer of the offending vehicle i.e., the Oriental InsuranceCompany Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, filed thisappeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance companysubmitted that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the percentage ofdisability at 45% on the basis of the certificate issued by Dr.L.Ramulu, who stated that he treated the injured at his privatenursing home, though she was advised to go to the GandhiHospital, Secunderabad for expert treatment and that the disabilityshown in the disability certificate issued by Dr. L.Ramulu is onhigher side compared to the injuries sustained by the claimant. Itis further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunaltowards medical expenses and loss of pain and suffering is alsoon higher side though the injuries sustained by the claimant arenot serious in nature. Therefore, the compensation awarded by theTribunal is liable to be reduced.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submitted thatthe claimant sustained crush injury to her right hand, fracture ofboth bones of right fore arm, facture of both jaws, head injury andalso lost some teeth. As the claimant was coolie at the time ofaccident, she lost her earning capacity on account of crush injuryto the right hand, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly awardedcompensation and the same requires no interference by thisCourt.
6. The claimant examined PW.2-Dr Ramulu to prove theinjuries sustained by her and the percentage of disability. Themedical evidence produced by the claimant shows that shesustained compound comminuted fracture of right humerus,facture of both bones of right fore arm and abrasion on bothmuscle region. Admittedly, she sustained two fracture injuries.Though she was advised to take treatment at Government Hospital
in Secunderabad, she approached the private nursing home of DrRamulu. Ex.X.1-disability certificate issued by Dr. Ramuluappears to be not inconsonance with the injuries sustained by theclaimant. The medical evidence further indicates mal-union offracture bones after some period. Therefore, the percentage ofdisability was assessed at 45% by PW.2. There is likelihood ofreduction of percentage of disability. Therefore, taking intoconsideration of the above aspect, the percentage of disability istaken at 25% as against 45% taken by the Tribunal, which comesto Rs.72,000/- (Rs.1500/-x12=Rs.18,000/-X 16x 25%). TheTribunal has awarded Rs.1,37,700/- towards loss of dependency.Therefore, there is reduction of Rs.65,700/- (Rs.1,37,700/- minusRs.72,000/-). As per Ex.A.7-medical bills filed by the claimantindicates an amount of Rs.13,060/- only, but the Tribunal haserroneously awarded Rs.50,000/- without looking into the bills filedby the claimant without any basis. Thus, there would be reductionof an amount of Rs.36,940/- (Rs.50,000/- minus Rs.13,060/-) inmedical bills. The Tribunal also erred in awarding Rs.10,000/-towards loss of estate, which is not permissible in the case ofinjury cases and same can only be granted in the case of death. Thus, the claimant is entitled for Rs.1,87,360/- (Rs. 3,00,000/-minus Rs.1,12,640/- (Rs.65,700/- + Rs.36,940/- + Rs.10,000/-) asagainst Rs.3,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
7. Subject to above modification, the appeal is allowed-in-part.There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________
Date: 30.12.2013 V.SURI APPARAO, J kvrm
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO
MACMA NO. 477 OF 2007
DATE: 30.12.2013