Allowed

A. Nagamani v. N. Vani

Telangana HC28 Mar 2014MACMA/373/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court enhanced the motor accident compensation awarded to a minor claimant by the Tribunal. The claimant suffered head injuries including a linear fracture in the left parietal bone. The Court awarded Rs.60,000 total, comprising Rs.20,000 for pain/suffering, Rs.30,000 for loss of earnings, and Rs.10,000 for medical/miscellaneous expenses, along with 7.5% interest.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation of Rs.60,000 awarded (Rs.20k pain/suffering, Rs.30k loss of earnings, Rs.10k medical) with 7.5% p.a. interest from date of petition.

A. Nagamani Vs N. Vani — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.373 of 2005

¶3

JUDGMENT:-

¶4

No representation for the Insurance Company in spite of service of the notice on it and in spite of printing its name in the cause list.

¶5

Challenging the award dated 18.11.2004 passed in M.V.O.P.No.682 of 2000 by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – VII Additional District Judge, Guntur (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity), the minor claimant being represented by her next friend – father, preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the same.

¶6

The appellant herein is the petitioner and the respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal and for the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

¶7

The original claim is for Rs.60,000/- and the Tribunal awarded Rs.22,000/-. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

¶8

The claimant is a minor aged about 7 years and is being represented by her natural guardian, father. On 26.05.2000 at about 03:00 P.M., the claimant was standing on the left side of the road margin near Pothuru junction. Meanwhile, a bus hired with APSRTC bearing registration

¶9

No.AP 16 X 2077 coming from Chilakaluripet side being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and at high speed, dashed against the claimant and the claimant sustained head injury and other injuries. The claimant claimed a total compensation of Rs.60,000/-.

¶10

The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent is the Insurance Company with which the vehicle was insured. The claim of the claimant was resisted by the second respondent on several grounds.

¶11

The Tribunal framed necessary issues. On the issue of negligence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. On the issue of awarding compensation, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of future earnings and Rs.2,000/- towards medical expenses. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant filed this appeal seeking enhancement.

¶12

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal ought to have considered the nature of injuries and the after-effects of the head injury which caused behavioural changes and, therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on much lower side.

¶13

As seen from the evidence on record, the accident occurred on 26.05.2000 at about 03:00 p.m. The claimant

¶14

was admitted in government General Hospital, Guntur on the same day and discharged on 30.05.2000. Thus, the claimant was treated as in-patient for five days. Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of the wound certificate. The following injuries are noted in Ex.A.3.

¶15

1. Abrasion over forehead

¶16

2. Abrasion on frontal area

¶17

3. Abrasion above right eyebrow

¶18

4. Abrasion over medial side of left elbow

¶19

5. Abrasion on right big toe.

¶20

Thus, the claimant received three injuries on her head. Ex.A.3 further discloses that CT scan was taken and the said CT Scan report reveals fracture of left parietal bone and injuries 1 to 3 are grevious in nature and other injuries are simple in nature. As per the CT scan report, there is linear fracture to the left parietal bone. Ex.A.4 is the chit showing prescription of some medicines. Dr. M.Nageswara Rao, Assistant Professor of Neuro Surgery of Government Hospital, Guntur is examined as P.W.2. According to P.W.1, the father of the minor claimant, the claimant is affected with mental disorder. According to P.W.2, there are some minimum behavioural changes in the claimant. However, P.W.2 did not give the percentage of disability.

¶21

Unfortunately, no through examinations have been conducted to ascertain the after-effects of the injuries sustained by the claimant. The father of the claimant ought to have taken steps to see that required examinations and treatment is given to the claimant. Admittedly, there is linear fracture in the left parietal bone and adjacent soft

¶22

tissue swelling to the claimant as per the hospital casesheet.

¶23

Having regard to the place of injuries and the period of treatment, I consider it just and reasonable to award an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earnings and amenities of life. I also consider it just and reasonable to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges, medical expenses and other miscellaneous and incidental expenses. Thus, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) (Rs.20,000/+ Rs.30,000/+ Rs.10,000/-).

¶24

The award of the Tribunal stands modified accordingly and the appeal is allowed awarding a total compensation of Rs.60,000/- to the claimant together with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

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

¶26

_______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar

¶27

28^th March, 2014 Bvv

A. Nagamani v. N. Vani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Nagamani v. N. Vani

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

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Gonela Sujatha

National Insurance Company Limited, Vs Polepaka Indira , Priya Darshini

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Tthalla Mallakka

Saraswathamma Vs a.Srinivas Reddy

The National Insurance Company Limited, Vs C.H.Balram

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs a.Parndama Chetty