Allowed

Pendyala Prasanna Kumari v. Mohd. Amruz Zaman

Telangana HC12 Dec 2013MACMA/65/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in M.A.C.M.A.No.65 of 2005 allowed an appeal by a motor accident victim seeking enhancement of compensation. Finding the original award insufficient given 25% disability and loss of income, the Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,60,769/- including future medical expenses and attendant charges.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced total compensation of Rs.2,60,769/- awarded, carrying interest at 6% per annum.

Pendyala Prasanna Kumari Vs Mohd. Amruz Zaman — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.65 of 2005

¶3

JUDGMENT:-

¶4

Dissatisfied with the award of compensation of Rs.1,31,969/- for a total claim of Rs.5,00,000/- by award dated 21.09.2004 passed in O.P.No.1766 of 2001 by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Nizamabad (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity), the claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶5

The finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence is not in dispute. The dispute is only with regard to the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶6

It is not in dispute that on 03.09.2001, the claimant and her son Ravishekhar were proceeding on a scooter bearing registration No.AP-25-F-3114 from Jannepally to Nizamabad and when they crossed Ashok Farm at Gundaram Village shivar on Jannepally Road at about 11:30 AM, the offending jeep bearing registration No.AP-7-T-9381 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, came from opposite direction and dashed against the scooter. The claimant and her son fell down and sustained injuries. The son of the claimant died on the spot and the claimant sustained multiple injuries. Contending that after the accident she sustained permanent disability, unable to walk and thus became unfit to work, the claimant claimed a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶7

The claim of the petitioner is resisted by the

¶8

respondents on various grounds.

¶9

The Tribunal framed the issues as to (1) whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP-7-T-9381 by its driver; (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what just amount and from which of the respondents; and (3) to what relief.

¶10

On behalf of the claimant, the claimant herself was examined as P.W.1 and one Dr.T.Narsing Rao was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 have been marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced except marking the Xerox copy of Insurance Policy as Ex.B.1.

¶11

The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP-7-T-9381. On the issue of compensation, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,31,969/-. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement.

¶12

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant is that the Tribunal awarded meagre amount as compensation and failed to consider the disability sustained by the claimant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the second respondent – Insurance Company submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and that no documents have been filed showing the income of the injured. Learned counsel further submitted that soon after the

¶13

accident, the claimant did not inform the same to the Insurance Company.

¶14

The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation.

¶15

The claimant herself was examined as P.W.1. According to her, she sustained fractures and was shifted to Government Hospital, Nizamabad, where, she was treated as In-patient for three days. Thereafter, she took treatment under one Dr.Laxma Reddy and from there, she was shifted to Udey Hospital, Hyderabad. According to her, she had spent about Rs.1,20,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- towards her treatment. P.W.1 specifically deposed that in spite of taking treatment, she is unable to sit and stand for longer period and still getting pains and she is unable to walk. It is also her case that a steel rod is inserted in her leg and the same has to be removed by conducting another operation. It is also her case that she was doing poultry farm business and maintaining 5000 birds and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and after the accident she lost her income.

¶16

P.W.2 is the doctor who examined the claimant. According to him, he is a consultant orthopaedic surgeon at Nizamabad. His evidence reveals that he examined P.W.1 and assessed her disability at 85%. According to P.W.2, the claimant (P.W.1) suffered mal-united fracture of Femur, Wrist and clavicle.

¶17

Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of the Wound Certificate. It revels that the Medical Officer, Government Hospital,

¶18

Nizamabad, had examined the claimant immediately after the accident and found fracture of right Femur, fracture of right wrist and fracture of clavicle.

¶19

Ex.A.4 is the disability certificate issued to the claimant by P.W.2. Unfortunately, no relevant documents viz., X-Ray films, Case Sheet, Discharge Summary of P.W.1 have been filed. However, Ex.A.7 reveals that the claimant was operated in Udey Clinic, Hyderabad. The medical bills show that Surgeon’s fee was paid and the other amounts shown in the bills reveal that the claimant was operated in the said hospital.

¶20

In fact, the claimant should have filed the discharge summary prepared at the time of her discharge from the hospital. In case of fracture, X-Ray film after the accident and after completion of treatment and on the date of discharge should be filed to understand whether there was proper union of fractured bones or not. X-Ray films would have revealed whether there was mal-union or non-union of bones. However, the evidence of P.W.1 that she is unable to sit and stand for longer period and she is unable to walk cannot be disbelieved merely because the concerned records are not filed. Of course, the percentage of disability opined by P.W.2 need not be accepted, but his evidence reveals that the claimant sustained mal-united fracture.

¶21

In the circumstances, I consider it jut and reasonable to hold that the claimant sustained at least 25% of disability. Thus, even if her income is assessed at Rs.80/- per day, the loss of earnings would come to Rs.20/- per day and monthly loss of earnings would come to Rs.600/- and annual loss of

¶22

earnings would come to Rs.7,200/-. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the claimant is 14. Thus, the total loss of earnings are calculated at Rs.1,00,800/- (Rs.7,200/- x 14). The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. But having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the operation conducted, the same is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.45,000/- towards disability and Rs.81,969/- towards medical expenses and the same appears to be reasonable. However, no amount was awarded towards transportation charges, extra nourishment, future medical expenses and attendant charges. In the circumstances, I consider it just and reasonable to award an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.3,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses. Thus, the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,60,769/{Rs.1,00,800/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.45,000/- + Rs.81,969/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.3,000/- + Rs.10,000/-}.

¶23

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed awarding a total compensation of Rs.2,60,769/- (Rupees three lakhs sixty one thousand five hundred and sixty nine only) to the claimant. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

¶25

_________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar

¶26

12^th December, 2013

¶27

Bvv

Pendyala Prasanna Kumari v. Mohd. Amruz Zaman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pendyala Prasanna Kumari v. Mohd. Amruz Zaman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paladugu Ramesh Vs Shaik Begum Bee (died)

Ashok Kumar Agrwal, Vs Smt. K.Vijaya

Ashok Kumar Agarwal Vs K.Vijalya

Nimmagadda Baby Sarojini Vs Kothapalli Vishwakantha Rao

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Gorumutchu Venkateswara RAo

Pochareddy Srihari Reddy, Vs Veeriboina Harikrishna