This High Court domestic appeal enhanced the compensation awarded to an injured lawyer for loss of earnings during treatment and increased pain and suffering damages, granting a total of Rs. 4,29,900 plus interest.
Compensation enhanced to Rs. 4,29,900 plus 6% per annum interest on the enhanced amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
CMA.No. 1408 OF 2003
Between: Mamikdi Venkatram Reddy … Appellant V/s. K.Mani & Anr. … Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the respondents : Sri K.Kishorekumar Reddy The Court made the following : (Judgment follows)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
CMA.No. 1408 OF 2003
O R D E R :
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the injured-claimant against the award and decree dated 15-4-2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad.
2. Heard Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the second respondentUnited India Insurance Company Limited.
3. The appellant, who is an Advocate by profession was proceeding in his Maruti-800 Car bearing No.AP-9/A-9311from Metpalli to Hyderabad on 17-10-1995. While he was driving the said car on the left side of the road, at about 06:00 a.m., a lorry bearing No.AP-13/T-8537, which was coming in the opposite direction dashed against the car on account of the rash and negligent driving of its driver. The learned Claims Tribunal on evidence found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP-13/T-8537, fastened the liability on the respondent No.1 owner of the vehicle and respondent No.2 United India Insurance Company Limited with which the said offending lorry was insured. The owner and insurer were held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Against the claim of Rs.5 lakhs, the learned Claims Tribunal under various heads awarded compensation of Rs.3,04,900=00 together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing claim-petition till the date of realization. The present appeal is filed by
the claimant on the ground that the compensation granted by the learned Claims Tribunal is not just and reasonable and it requires enhancement.
4. As could be seen from the evidence of PW-1, the appellant and PW-2 the doctor, who treated him for the injuries on the head as well as on the face. Initially, he was shifted to MEDWIN Hospital, Hyderabad, where he underwent treatment as inpatient upto 28-10-1995. During the course of the treatment, he underwent two surgeries for fracture of maxilla and skin grafting was done for face and cheeks. His teeth were fixed with wiring and he was only on liquid food for a period of four months. Again on 01-12-1995 he was admitted in MEDWIN Hospital, Hyderabad where a major surgery was conducted and thereafter he underwent treatment for lateral maxillary fixations cranial suspension and clips of his teeth were removed and nine teeth were replaced. PW-2 the doctor stated in his evidence that on 17-10-1995 the appellant was admitted with ‘poly trauma’ and ‘head injury’ and ‘facio maxillary injuries’. On examination he found that the appellant had three fractures with ‘dranged occlusion’
and ‘dento alirolar fracture’ with split in the upper jaw and multiople lacerations and injuries on eye-lids. He performed operations on two occasions for the management of ‘maxila facila injury’ at MEDWIN Hospital, Hyderabad. PW-2 stated that subsequent to the operations also the appellant was visiting for periodical check ups. PW-2 issued Ex.A-4 disability certificate stating that the appellant sustained 30% deficiency in
chewing and deformity in the face at 55%. The learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000=00 for pain and suffering, Rs.10,000=00 for transportation and extra-nourishment and an amount of Rs.44,900=00 towards treatment and medicines. In all the Claims Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.3,04,900=00.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the claimant was unable to attend the Court for over a period of two years and the learned Claims Tribunal did not award any amount towards loss of earnings to the appellant. The learned counsel would also submit that the amount granted towards pain and suffering is also not adequate and that the compensation is required to be enhanced. The amount of Rs.2,00,000=00 granted by the learned Claims Tribunal for 30% deficiency in chewing and facial deformity at 55% being reasonable, needs no interference in this appeal. Even though there is no documentary evidence showing that the appellant was out of legal practice for a period of two years, the medical evidence clearly discloses that the appellant was undergoing treatment for a period of five months and during the said period, in my view that the appellant was unable to work as Advocate. The learned Claims Tribunal, therefore, in my view ought to have compensated the appellant for the loss of earnings during the said period of five months.
6. Considering the income of the appellant at Rs.10,000=00 per
month, an amount of Rs.50,000=00 is awarded to the appellant for the loss of earnings during the period of treatment and hospitalization. This apart, I am of the view that the compensation of Rs.50,000=00 granted by the learned Claims Tribunal for pain and suffering is not adequate and is enhanced to Rs.75,000=00 in this appeal. The remaining amount granted by the learned Claims Tribunal being reasonable are not interfered in this appeal. The appellant is entitled for total compensation of Rs. 3,04,900=00 + Rs.50,000=00 + Rs.75,000=00 = Rs. 4,29,900=00 . The
appellant is entitled for interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation.
7. With the above enhancement in the compensation, the civil
miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant-claimant is partly allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
------------------------------------JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO. 05/07/2012 I s L
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
CMA. No. 1408 OF 2003
Circulation No. 278 Date:05/07/2012 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal for loss of earnings and pain and suffering is sufficient to be enhanced.
The extent to which an advocate-claimant is entitled to compensation for loss of earnings during the period of treatment following a serious head injury.
Mamikdi Venkatram Reddy
K.Mani & Anr.
R. KANTHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
