The Single Judge enhanced compensation from Rs.81,921/- to Rs.90,000/-, adding amounts for pain and suffering and temporary partial disability while retaining awards for extra nourishment and future surgery, dismissing the insurance company's appeal.
Compensation enhanced to Rs.90,000/-; M.A.C.M.As disposed of; 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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3359 Of 2009 AND M.A.C.M.A.No.3740 OF 2011
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Both these appeals arise out of an award passed in O.P.No.574 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (FTC), Hyderabad.
2. The claim for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor accident. According to the petitioner on 20.12.2003 he along with his wife were proceeding on TVS champ bearing No. AHY-7412 and when they reached near main road, lorry bearing No.AP-11-6314 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the TVS, as a result of which the petitioner suffered multiple injuries and he incurred huge amount for treatment.
3. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurance company. Respondent No.2 denied the liability and also quantum of compensation. The Tribunal after considering the evidence, granted compensation of Rs.81,921/-. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioner has preferred M.A.C.M.A. No.3740 of 2011. Questioning the quantum of compensation, the insurance company filed M.A.C.M.A.No.3359 of 2009.
4. The point that arises for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal below is just and reasonable.
5. POINT:
So far as the nature of the incident is concerned, there is no dispute. The Tribunal below has come to a conclusion that Ex.A.3-
Medico legal record of Osmania General Hospital, discloses that there was tenderness over the left thigh and the petitioner did not take any treatment and immediately he was admitted in Rohini Hospital and where he was treated from 22.12.2003 to 26.12.2003. According to the petitioner he was said to be on leave for 145 days and consequently the Tribunal below also considered the loss of income.
6. Learned counsel for the insurance company contends that the petitioner is a Government employee and he availed leave on medical grounds, the Tribunal below cannot be treated as a loss of income and the compensation granted by the Tribunal below towards loss of income is not proper.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal below has properly taken into consideration the disability and the medical expenses and consequently, the ward is not proper.
8. Evidently, it is quite clear that the petitioner was said to be in hospital and was operated at NIMS hospital and he sustained be fracture to his left thigh. The fact that the petitioner was on leave for 145 days. The petitioner suffered temporary partial disability. The medical expenses and attendance for a period of nearly one week when the petitioner was in the hospital, cannot also be ignored. Therefore, taking into consideration the above fact, I feel the ends of justice would meet if an amount of Rs.25,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering; an amount of Rs.15,000/- is granted towards medical expenditure. The amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal below towards extra nourishment of Rs.10,000/- and future surgery Rs.10,000/- is retained. Furthermore, though the petitioner may not claim that he is entitled for loss of income, but, however, there is temporary partial disability due to the injury and he was in hospital for
a period of 145 days, I feel the ends of justice would meet if an amount of Rs.30,000/- is granted towards temporary partial disability. In total compensation of Rs.90,000/- is granted to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.As are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
FEBRUARY 02, 2011 YVL
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3359 Of 2009 AND M.A.C.M.A.No.3740 OF 2011
02.01.2012
YVL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
Petitioner
Respondent No.1
Respondent No.2
N.R.L. Nageswara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
