Partly allowed

Harijana G.Madar v. T.Jaya Prathap Reddy

Telangana HC12 Jul 2011MACMA/1383/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for inadequate compensation due to unassessed 100% vision disability and unaccounted medical expenses, the High Court enhanced the award to Rs.90,000 while dismissing claims for unproven rashness.

What did the court decide?

The award of the lower Tribunal enhanced to Rs.90,000/- comprising additional compensation for disability, medical expenses, attendance, and loss of earnings.

Harijana G.Madar Vs T.Jaya Prathap Reddy — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.1383 of 2011

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

Heard.

¶5

2. The appeal is filed against the order in O.P.No.160 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Kurnool by the claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal.

¶6

3. According to the case of the petitioner, on 30.01.2001 when the petitioner was proceeding on the left side of the road, Nagaluti village at about 2.30 P.M., the tractor and trailer came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, as a result of which, he received multiple injuries and also suffered permanent disability and accordingly, claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶7

4. The 2^nd respondent filed counter putting the petitioner to strict proof of the rashness and negligence of the driver of the vehicle, nature of the incident and nature of the disability and also the nature of the expenditure incurred by him.

¶8

5. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and marked Exs.B.1 and B.2. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence granted compensation of Rs.45,000/-. Though the insurance company has denied the liability no appeal was filed questioning the award.

¶9

6. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that as can be seen from the award of the lower Tribunal itself, the petitioner has received multiple injuries and in fact Ex.A.4 certificate issued by the Medical Board shows that there was 100% disability of the vision and it is proved by the evidence of PW.2. But, the lower Tribunal has not accepted the same and therefore, the award has to be set aside.

¶10

7. Evidently, the lower Tribunal relied upon the injury certificate and found that there was one grievous injury and 12 simple injuries and granted a compensation of Rs.45,000/- towards the injuries. Injury No.9, which is grievous, is said to be an injury to the ribs. The lower Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards the medical expenses, so also the claim of the petitioner that he suffered total disability with regard to the loss of the vision is not accepted. But, the evidence of PW.2 shows that Ex.A.4 contains his signature and he countersigned the same and the disability was assessed by Medical Board. Though PW.2 has not stated that he has treated PW.1 the fact remains that he has countersigned it with an authority and if the contents therein are not true there is no reason for him to countersign the certificate as a truthful one, but it would have been better if petitioner examines the doctor, who treated him. Non-examination by itself is not a ground to deny the compensation.

¶11

8. Therefore, taking into consideration the evidence of PW.2 and Ex.A.4 Certificate, further compensation of Rs.30,000/- is granted for disability and a further compensation of Rs.10,000/- is granted for medical expenses and attendance. The petitioner is also granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of earnings. Therefore, taking into consideration the above fact, the award of the lower Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.90,000/- instead of Rs.45,000/- granted by the lower Tribunal.

¶12

Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No

¶13

costs.

¶14

N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J

¶15

Date: 12.07.2011 INL

Harijana G.Madar v. T.Jaya Prathap Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harijana G.Madar v. T.Jaya Prathap Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maddukuri Laxmi Narayana Vs kodali Sampath kumar

United India InsuranceCo.,Ltd., Vs IchakolaRajaiah

M.Janardhan Reddy Vs P.Sridhar

Madakam Venkateswara Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr. Goutham Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. venkateswarlu Vs Ch. Chencukumari