- v. -
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court modified the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award, enhancing compensation by Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,50,000 total for a man who lost use of his right leg in a lorry accident, altering interest to 6%.
What did the court decide?
Compensation enhanced by Rs. 50,000 totaling Rs. 1,50,000 with interest at 6% per annum and proportionate costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD
C.M.A. No.2127 of 2001
Between:
M. Komraiah .. Appellant AND
M.D. Nageshwar Rao and others .. Respondents
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.68 of 1988 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cumDistrict Judge, Adilabad, dated 24-08-1989.
The injured claimant was involved in a motor accident at about 10.30 P.M. on 30-06-1987, when he was going to his place of work at Mandamarri and lorry No.ADM 3639, coming in opposite direction in high speed and driven rashly and negligently, dashed against him. The right leg of the claimant was crushed and fractured apart from other injuries sustained by the claimant. The cycle was also totally damaged and the claimant suffered a permanent disability. Hence, he sought for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle, as he had to undergo treatment at Mancherial and Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad till
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and adequate given the claimant's permanent disability and loss of earning capacity.
Whether the rate of interest on the compensation needed to be modified.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M. Komraiah
- respondent
M.D. Nageshwar Rao and others
Coram
G BHAVANI PRASAD
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · August
- Registered
- Case no.
- CMA/2127/2001
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court