Appeal against Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award of Rs.2,20,000/-. Petitioner was a minor injured in a vehicle accident. Court held awarded compensation is reasonable and allowed the appeal.
Appeal 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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.3417 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
The appeal is filed against the award in O.P.No.845 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, questioning the quantum of compensation.
2. A claim for compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- was made for the injuries received by the petitioner.
3. According to the case of the petitioner, on 22.06.2001 at about 5.30 P.M., while the petitioner was crossing the road near Cottonpet, Dowlaiswaram, the oil tanker bearing No.AP 5 U 1479 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner received crush injury to the left leg and multiple injuries all over the body and the petitioner was treated in a private hospital and was operated. The claim was initially for Rs.2,00,000/and thereafter, it was amended to Rs.3,50,000/-. The 2nd respondent, which is the Insurance Company, disputed the nature of the incident and also the liability. The Tribunal below after considering the material evidence granted a compensation of Rs.2,20,000/-.
4. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable?
5. POINT:
So far as the nature of incident is concerned there is not of much dispute. There is also no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was aged about ‘8’ years at the time of accident and the evidence of PW.2, who is the doctor, clearly goes to show that the petitioner was admitted
in the Suraksha Emergency hospital on 22.06.2001 and there was said to be amputation of toe of the left foot and major surgery was done. Taking into consideration the above fact, the lower Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses and a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering and a sum of Rs.25,000/towards extra nourishment. Added to that the Tribunal below has also granted Rs.60,000/- towards loss of amenities in life and Rs.25,000/for loss of expectancy of life and also Rs.20,000/- towards loss of prospects of marriage.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has not granted any separate compensation towards disability as opined by the doctor. I am not able to agree with the said contention since the composition of nearly Rs.1,05,000/- granted by the Tribunal below with regard to the loss of amenities, loss of expectancy and loss of prospects of marriage are all incidents of disability, which the individual has suffered. Taking any view of the matter, I find that the award is highly reasonable and it does not call for any interference.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
Date:01.02.2012 INL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal calling for interference.
Minor/Child Victim
Insurance Company
N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
