This appeal against an order awarding Rs.1,500 compensation for motor accident injuries. The court enhanced the compensation to Rs.12,000, covered medical expenses and pain/suffering, reduced the interest rate, and allowed the appeal in part.
Compensation enhanced to Rs.12,000; interest rate reduced from 12% to 7.5% per annum.
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 R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.404 of 2003
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri R.K.Suri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant and Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondentinsurance company.
The present appeal is filed by the claimant against the order, dated 03.01.2000, passed in O.P.No.1416 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal below”).
Since the appeal relates only to the quantum of compensation, the other aspects of the case need not be referred to.
In respect of the injuries sustained by the claimant, who is a matador driver, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12.07.1997, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.75,000/-.
The learned Tribunal below after making an enquiry into the claim, awarded compensation of Rs.1,500/- which is challenged by the claimant in this appeal on the ground that it is grossly inadequate and requires enhancement.
As could be seen from Ex.A-3-X-ray report, the appellant received two injuries which are said to be simple in nature. For the two simple injuries, an amount of Rs.6,000/-, i.e., Rs.3,000/- for each injury can be granted.
It is borne out from the evidence on record that the appellant underwent treatment in Osmania General Hospital as well as in ESRA Hospital, Shalibanda, Hyderabad. He filed Ex.A-4-medical bills showing that he had spent an amount of Rs.12,000/- for the treatment of the injuries. The learned Tribunal below, in my view, is not justified in not placing reliance on the medical bills filed by the appellant-claimant on the ground that no person concerned with the medical bills had been examined by the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant
submitted that the learned Tribunal below could have atleast granted reasonable amount for medical expenses. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in this appeal, therefore, an amount of Rs.3,000/- is granted towards medical expenses. That apart, an amount of Rs.3,000/- is granted towards the pain and suffering and Rs.6,000/- for the two injuries i.e., Rs.3,000/for each injury . In all, the appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.12,000/-. The interest granted by the learned Tribunal below at the rate of 12% per annum being on higher side is reduced to 7.5 % per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.
Consequently, with the above enhancement in compensation and reduction in the rate of interest, the appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
02nd July 2012 DR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation of Rs 1500 awarded for a motor accident injury is inadequate and requires enhancement.
Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in disregarding the medical bills filed by the appellant without examining the concerned person.
Whether the rate of interest at 12% per annum granted by the Tribunal should be reduced.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Claimant (Appellant)
Second Respondent Insurance Company
R. Kantha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
