The High Court enhanced the motor accident compensation from Rs.1,56,000 to Rs.1,80,000 to include proper transport and reasonable pain and suffering amounts, and awarded 7.5% interest.
Compensation enhanced to Rs.1,80,000; interest awarded at 7.5% p.a. from date of petition.
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.
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO MACMA.MP.No.5493 of 2014 in MACMA No.1002 of 2008 & M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1002 of 2008 & 610 of 2010
COMMON JUDGMENT :
The above two appeals one preferred by the claimant (MACMA No.1002 of 2008) and the other preferred by the A.P.S.R.T.C aggrieved by the order/award dated 30.11.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.3092 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad awarding compensation of Rs.1,56,000/with interest at 6% p.a. against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’).
2) Heard Sri N.Ashok Kumar the learned counsel for the appellantclaimant and Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy learned standing counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C in the respective appeals. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.
3) The contentions of the learned counsel for the claimant in the grounds of appeal that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is utterly low to enhance as prayed for in the claim petition. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned standing counsel for A.P.S.R.T that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and prayed to set aside the award of the Tribunal.
4) Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:
1. Whether the quantum is unjust either excessive or utterly low and what is the just compensation to arrive and what rate of interest with what observations?
2. To what result?
POINT No.1:
5) There is no dispute on the manner of accident, but for the
quantum of compensation and rate of interest as supra. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the accident was dated 29.11.2004. As per Ex.A-4, medical certificate, issued by NIMS hospital, the injured was treated as inpatient from 29.11.2004 to 16.01.2005 for the compound fracture of both bones of left leg with digloving injury and there is debridgement with external fixation. Ex.A-5 is the discharge summary issued by the NIMS hospital pursuant to it stating the compound fracture is likely mallows near left ankle with closed fracture of tibia and there was surgery on 29.11.2004 (date of accident) by debridgement under external fixation and ankle stabilization and with flap covered and again on 06.01.2005 another surgery by interlocking nailing to the right tibia and it is mentioned that the condition at the time of discharge is stable, no fresh complications and sutures over the fracture side not totally removed and the enclosures with Ex.A-5 discharge summary contain one dated 09.02.2005 showing the patient again was admitted on 02.02.2005 and discharged on 09.02.2005 and flap viable with raw area lateral aspect covered with edematous granulations and donor area healed well by referring to the said compound fracture of both bones of left leg to say there was again admitted and treated as inpatient in February, 2 to 9 and certified that the condition of the patient stable and injuries healed well and the other enclosure shows that the treatment by 23.12.2004 that principal L.D flap covered for the left ankle dorsal foot done and rest of the flap perfectly good and there is improvement. There is another certificate of the H.B.O therapy during 23rd December to 31st December, 2004 as out-patient. This is the case record and progress of recovery.
6) Undisputedly, there is no doctor examined from the NIMS hospital and P.W-4 is not the doctor who treated the injured and the above medical records of the NIMS speaks well that the injured was recovered including three times as inpatient treatment referred supra and ultimately went for physiotherapy from 24.12.2004 to 31.04.2004. Thereby, the Tribunal rightly not given credence to the evidence of P.W-4 by discussing with reference to the above discharge summary of NIMS
covered by Ex.A-4 and for this Court while sitting in appeal though there is nothing to interfere in so far as the said finding of the Tribunal of there is no disability to the injured from the above case record as per M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.5493 of 2014 enclosed with disability certificate issued by NIMS hospital, dated 15.11.2014, the injured claimant got nearly 10% permanent partial disability. The same marked as Ex.A-17 for reference. It is therefrom show nearly 10% partial permanent disability only. Then, coming to the quantum of compensation in these respects, the claimant placed reliance upon evidence of P.W-2 and Ex.A-6 receipts said to have been incurred of Rs.8,000/- towards Transport expenditure, the Tribunal did not believe the same and awarded only Rs.2,000/- as the relevant period, he filed it shows he was treated as inpatient. No doubt that includes the dates viz., 23rd , 24th and 29th December, 2004 and the discharge summary enclosed shows that he is attending for H.B. Therapy treatment. Thereby an amount of Rs.8,000/- can be taken into consideration towards transport charges rather than Rs.2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
7) Coming to the medical bills covered by Ex.A-7 to A-10, the Tribunal has awarded in all Rs.75,000/- by considering all the bills. Hence, it no way requires to be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- from Rs.75,000/- though so claimed. Regarding the motor vehicle damage and repairs, there is basically no evidence and the Tribunal however awarded Rs.2,000/- though not supposed to be, hence the same is not choosing to interfere as the Tribunal exercised the discretion having fresh in mind, the facts by recorded the evidence. Regarding injuries, pain and sufferance, the Tribunal in all awarded Rs.50,000/- and Rs.20,000/again including from the alleged disability. So far as the pain and sufferance, one compound fracture of both bones and the other ankle injury. There is treatment by thrice admitted as inpatient in NIMS as referred supra Rs.40,000/- for pain and sufferance is the just compensation including from the compound fracture of Rs.30,000/-. Further, Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges, extra nourishment and
loss of earnings that can be awarded and another Rs.40,000/- for the permanent partial disability, it comes to RS.1,80,000/- (Rs.8,000 + 2,000 + 75,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 40,000=1,80,000). Further the rate of interest requires interference as the appellate Court, as per the settled expression of the Apex Court even though no cross-objections also, got the discretionary power under Order LXI Rule 33 C.P.C to award reasonable rate of interest as laid down by the Apex Court in DDA Vs. Joginder S. Monga[1] and thus under Section 171 of the MVAct as laid down in TN Transport Corporation v. Raja Priya[2] .
POINT No.2:
8) M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.5493 of 2014: In the result, the Petition is allowed and the disability certificate issued by N.I.M.S hospital is marked for reference as Ex.A-17.
M.A.C.M.A.No. 610 of 2010:
9) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
M.A.C.M.A.No.1002 of 2008:
10) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,56,500/- to Rs.1,80,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Rest of the terms of the award of the Tribunal holds good. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the awarded amount after deposit made by the Respondents. There shall be no order as to costs.
11) Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in both the appeals, shall stand closed.
_______________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J Date:02-12-2014 ksh
MEMO OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR APPELLANT-CLAIMANT
Ex.A-17 (for reference) : Disability Certificate issued by N.I.M.S Hospital.
Dr.SSRB,J
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was unjustly low or excessive?
Whether the rate of interest awarded on the compensation was reasonable under the Motor Vehicles Act?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
DDA Vs. Joginder S. MongaExplained¶15
2004(2)SCC-297 · Who else cites this
TN Transport Corporation v. Raja PriyaExplained¶15
(2005) 6 SCC 236 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Claimant
A.P.S.R.T.C
Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
