Partly allowed

Mr.Y.Lakshmaiah v. Mr.Y.Veera Babu

Telangana HC12 Mar 2013CMA/1742/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against an award of Rs.25,000 compensation by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal. Finding the awarded amount inadequate for grievous injuries including lung damage and hip fracture, the Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,25,000 payable with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.25,000 to Rs.1,25,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

Mr.Y.Lakshmaiah Vs Mr.Y.Veera Babu — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA

¶2

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1742 OF 2004

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The petitioner in M.V.O.P. No.110 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum - II Additional District Judge, Guntur, assailing the impugned order dated 15^th December, 2003 filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation since he was awarded only Rs.25,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation, though he claimed a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.

¶5

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the M.V.O.P.

¶6

3. The brief facts of the case that led to filing the present appeal are that the petitioner was working as driver of a Jeep bearing No.AP-7W-2844 and on 16.12.1999 at about 3.00 p.m., he was proceeding on the Jeep from Brahamanapalli and when he reached near Gangireddypalem turning road, a Van bearing No. AP-7U-3312 came from opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver at high speed and hit the Jeep, resultantly, the petitioner sustained injuries on right hip, chest and lungs etc. Machavaram Police registered a case in Crime No.125/99 under Section 337 IPC against the driver of the Van. The petitioner was shifted to Vijaya Bhaskara Orthopedic Super Speciality Hospital, Guntur and he was treated as in-patient. The petitioner was aged 31 years and he was earning Rs.2,000/- per month besides batta of Rs.30/- per day at the time of accident. The petitioner spent Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses and treatment. The petitioner is not able to do any work due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, respondent No.1 being the owner of the Van and respondent No.2 being the insurer of Van are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶7

4. Respondent No.1, owner of the Van, was set ex parte. Respondent

¶8

No.2 – National Insurance Company Limited filed counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It is stated in the counter that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the Van at the time of the accident. In fact, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep and that the accident was the culmination of contributory or composite negligence of both the drivers of the vehicles. Respondent No.2 sought protection under Section 170(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act to defend the proceedings if respondent No.1- owner of the Van colluded with the petitioner and remained ex parte. Further, it is stated that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is at higher side.

¶9

5. Basing on the pleadings of both sides, the relevant issues were framed as to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Van bearing No. AP-7U - 3312 and as to the entitlement of the petitioner and the liability of the respondents to pay the compensation.

¶10

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioner, petitioner himself got examined as PW.1 besides examining medical witness as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced.

¶11

7. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence and other material brought on record and after hearing both sides, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Van by its driver and that the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation and that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded, the present appeal has been preferred by the petitioner for enhancement.

¶12

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner - appellant and the learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 - Insurance company.

¶13

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner - appellant contended that the

¶14

Tribunal grossly erred in granting a meagre amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation when the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the accident. The learned counsel contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that because of the grievous injury sustained on the chest by the petitioner in the accident, the petitioner is not able to continue his job as driver and/or any other work and that the Tribunal has failed to consider the material on record in proper perspective.

¶15

10. The learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 -insurance company submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation by considering the evidence on record, and as such, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference from this Court.

¶16

11. Petitioner as PW.1 stated that he sustained fracture injury to his right hip and that his chest was pressed with steering, as a result, his lungs were damaged in the accident. To prove the same, the petitioner got examined medical witness as PW.2 coupled with Ex. A3 - C. C. of certificate, Ex.A5 - Medical bills for Rs.6,307-75ps, Ex.A6 - E.C.G. report, Ex.A7 - X- rays (10) and Ex. A8 – certificate. PW.2 stated that the petitioner sustained grievous injury on the chest apart from fracture on his right hip. PW.2 stated that the petitioner has spent an amount of Rs.16,815/- for treatment excluding medicine, dietary and implant services. PW.2 also stated that generally they are not giving bills to a patient and they are in the habit of giving a letter showing the costs of the treatment. The petitioner was aged 31 years at the time of accident. It is seen that the petitioner was admitted to the hospital of PW.2 on 16.12.1999 and he was treated there as in-patient for the injury on chest and fracture femur right internal and he was discharged on 27.01.2000. It is the case of the petitioner that in the accident his chest got pressed by steering and as a result, his lungs were damaged. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal ought to have granted just and reasonable compensation instead of granting Rs.25,000/- in view of the grievous injury and fracture sustained by the

¶17

petitioner. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, nature of medical treatment undergone by him and the fact that the aforesaid injuries suffered by him certainly would affect his profession, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is awarded Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.33,000/- towards loss of earnings and Rs.12,000/- towards attendant charges. Thus, in all, the petitioner would be entitled to Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation, which is just and reasonable.

¶18

12. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner – appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand ) only with interest at 7.5% per annum so far as the enhanced compensation is concerned.

¶19

13. In the result, the C.M.A. is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

___________________

¶21

B.N. RAO NALLA, J

¶22

Date:12.03.2013 Stp

Mr.Y.Lakshmaiah v. Mr.Y.Veera Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Y.Lakshmaiah v. Mr.Y.Veera Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Dandala Laxmi Vs Primary Agricultural Coop Society

K.Raja Rao, S/O Late K.S.Ranga Rao, Vs Jaweed Sayeed, S/O Sayeed Ali Toufeeq

M. Seshaiah Vs K.M. Naik

Smt.Hameeda Begum Vs Mr.P.Anji Reddy

R.Venkateswara Rao Vs Khaleel

Dollu Seetha Rama Naidu Vs Puligummi Sattemma