In an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award, the Single Judge allowed the petition and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 40,000/-, noting the injuries were grievous contrary to the Tribunal's finding.
The appeal was allowed; compensation enhanced to Rs. 40,000/- from Rs. 9,600/-.
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 SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO.1160 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:-
The appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner challenging the award in O.P.No.1621 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad.
A claim for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- was filed for the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor accident. According to the case of the petitioner, on 25-09-2003 at about 10.30 P.M when the petitioner was going to his house near Nyalkal Chowrasta, one Auto bearing No.AP-25T-9924 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which, he received grievous injuries on head, right ear, right shoulder and other parts of the body. He was said to have been shifted to Nizamabad and thereafter at Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad. He claims to have spent money for treatment.
The first respondent is the owner and the second respondent is the Insurance Company, which has disputed the nature of the incident and quantum of compensation.
After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.9,600/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed.
Now the point that arises for consideration is:-
Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is legal and sustainable?
POINT:-
The learned counsel for the appellant contends that several documents are filed by the petitioner about the nature of the injuries received by him and the police have also filed a charge sheet for grievous injuries as can be seen from Ex.A-2 and the lower Tribunal has erred in considering the injuries only as a simple. As can be seen from Ex.A-3, the wound certificate, the petitioner is said to have sustained two injuries and there is said to be injuries to his head which are grievous in nature. The petitioner is said to have been referred to Gandhi hospital
after his treatment at Nizamabad. The Tribunal did not accept Ex.A-3 without examining the Doctor. There is no material to show that this certificate is disputed. But, however, Ex.A-2 the charge sheet filed by the police clearly goes to show that the accused was charged for an offence under Section 338 IPC also and consequently it is a case where the petitioner has received grievous injuries. If grievous injury is taken into consideration the computation of the compensation by the lower Tribunal cannot be said to be legal. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts, I feel ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.40,000/- is granted on all counts.
Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The total compensation to which the petitioner/appellant is entitled Rs.40,000/- in stead of Rs.9,600/- as granted by the lower Tribunal.
___________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 01-02-2012 TSNR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is legal and sustainable?
Whether the injury sustained in the motor accident should be treated as grievous based on police charge sheet and wound certificate?
Petitioner/Appellant
Insurance Company
N.R.L. Nageswara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
