An appeal by a rickshaw puller challenging the quantum of compensation of Rs.90,000/- awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The court upheld the award as just and reasonable.
The appeal seeking enhancement of compensation is dismissed; no order as to costs.
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.
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
CMA NO. 788 OF 2003
DATED: 08.02.2012
Between:
Santosh
.. Appellant
And
P.Chandrasekhar and another
.. Respondents
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
CMA NO. 788 OF 2003
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri P.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt A.Jayanthi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/insurance company.
2. This appeal is filed by the injured claimant against the Award dated 26.11.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in O.P.No.988 of 1998.
3. The appellant/rickshaw puller is involved in the motor vehicle accident on 23.10.1998 at about 5.30 PM while he was coming on his rickshaw from Madhavanagar towards Nizamabad. It is said that while he was on the way, a car bearing No. AP 25 T 3545 came in a rash and negligent manner dashed his rickshaw, as a result of which, he fell down and received severe injuries and due to which his left hip joint was fractured. He filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal for compensation of Rs.2 lakhs on account of the injuries sustained by him. The learned Tribunal
after making enquiry granted compensation of Rs.90,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
4. Challenge to the award is to the quantum of compensation on the ground that it is not adequate. The appellant, who was examined as PW.1 stated in his deposition that he is a rickshaw puller earning Rs.5,000/- per month, as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, there was a fracture to the hip joint, due to which he sustained permanent disability and he is not in a position to pull the rickshaw and also cannot do any work. PW.2, doctor L.Ramulu, who examined the appellant and issued Ex.A.16disability certificate on 22.09.2000 stated in his evidence that the claimant received the following injuries (1) fracture of neck femur left, (2) Laceration left side of the neck about 5 x 2 x 2 cms. According to the doctor, the claimant sustained permanent disability and will not be in a position to pull rickshaw or do other work because of the malunited fracture. PW.2 admitted in his evidence that there is a medical board for issuing disability certificate and he did not advise PW.1 to approach medical board. He was also further asked in the cross-examination that since the appellant approached him, he issued the disability certificate assessing the same on higher side with a view to help him. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/insurance company is that the disability is exaggerated and the compensation of Rs.90,000/- granted by the learned
Tribunal itself is on higher side and it requires no enhancement.
5. Admittedly, there is a medical board at Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad for issuing disability certificates and the disability certificate was issued by PW.2 Orthopedic Surgeon whom the appellant approached, therefore, the possibility of making assessment of the disability on higher side cannot be ruled out. The learned tribunal granted a sum of Rs.75,000/- for permanent disability, pain and suffering, loss of amenities in life which being reasonable need not be interfered with. For the other simple injuries, the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.3,000/- and an amount of Rs.12,000/- for medical treatment and extra nourishment though no witness was examined to prove the medical bills. Though lump sum amounts have been awarded, the amount of compensation granted being just and reasonable, it requires no enhancement as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/insurance company.
6. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________ Date: 08.02.2012 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
CMA NO. 788 OF 2003
DATED: 08.02.2012
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal warrants enhancement given the claimant's disability and injuries.
Santosh
P.Chandrasekhar
R. KANTHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
