In a motor accident claimant's appeal, the High Court found the lower Tribunal's disability award for a 5-year-old girl somewhat low. Enhancing the compensation from Rs. 45,000 to Rs. 55,000 while maintaining other award clauses.
Compensation for disability enhanced by Rs. 10,000; total compensation increased from Rs. 45,000 to Rs. 55,000.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A.No.3680 of 2003
JUDGMENT:
This is a claimant’s appeal for enhancement of compensation. The injured was a girl aged about 5 years. She was involved in a motor vehicle accident relating to lorry bearing No.AP-9U-2174. As per Ex.A.3 injury certificate, the injured girl was having crush injury to left upper limb without fracture and injury to forehead. Both the said injuries are opined to be simple in nature as per Ex.A.4. The injured was hospitalised from 19.11.1999 to 01.12.1999 in MGM hospital, Warangal. The appellant did not take any steps for obtaining any medical disability certificate. Inspite of that, the lower Tribunal is stated to have sent the injured to the hospital for medical opinion about disability. Ex.A.10 is the medical report sent by the Superintendent of MGM hospital to the Court along with Ex.A.11 covering letter. Inspite of it, no doctor was examined to prove the medical report-cumdisability certificate. According to the said report, the injured was having 60% disability of left upper arm. The lower Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering,
Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and attendance and Rs.20,000/- towards disability, totalling Rs.45,000/-, as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/-.
2. Placing reliance on Raj Kumar v Ajay Kuma r[1] of
the Supreme Court, it is contended by the appellant’s
counsel that the lower Tribunal should have awarded
compensation under the following heads:
“Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:L
iii) Future medical expenses Non-pecuniary damages (General
damages)
iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity)”.
3. Unfortunately, no proper evidence was let in by the petitioner/appellant in the lower Court on the above heads. Not even basic medical evidence was let in. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that amounts granted towards pain and suffering and medical expenses and attendance are proper and that compensation for disability at Rs.20,000/- appears to be some what low. In the light of the evidence before this Court, I am of the opinion that compensation for disability can be increased by another Rs.10,000/making it to Rs.30,000/-. The total compensation amount comes to Rs.55,000/-.
4. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.45,000/- to Rs.55,000/- and maintaining the other clauses in the award.
____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J
Dt. 2nd August, 2012. PNV
[1] (2011) 1 SCC 343
1 issue framed by the court
Whether compensation awarded for disability in a motor accident claim requires enhancement given the evidence on record.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raj Kumar v Ajay KumarReferred¶5
(2011) 1 SCC 343 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
UNKNOWN APPELLANT
LOWER TRIBUNAL/RESPONDENT
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
