The High Court dismissed an appeal seeking enhancement of motor accident compensation. The court held the Tribunal's award of Rs.79,000/- was just and reasonable, confirming the original order.
No enhancement of compensation; original award confirmed.
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.
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
M.A.C.M.A. No. 3054 OF 2005
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’), by the appellant-petitioner in O.P. No.123 of 2004 (Old O.P. No.963 of 2002) on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), having got dissatisfied with the award of compensation of Rs.79,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, granted by the Tribunal, vide the order dated 24.11.2004, as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- laid under Section 166 of the Act for the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident occurred on 17.01.2002.
Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others1 .
Tribunal.
that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries and was bedridden; before the
1 2001(1) ALT 495 (D.B.)
Dr. SA,J MACMA No_3054_2005
2
accident, she was working as fashion designer and earning Rs.10,000/per month; the Tribunal granted only Rs.79,000/- for the pain and suffering, loss of earnings, etc., due to the injuries, which is meagre and unjust; and ultimately, prayed to enhance the compensation as claimed.
Dr. SA,J MACMA No_3054_2005
3
and another sum of Rs.9,000/- towards loss of earnings. In all, the Tribunal granted Rs.79,000/- as compensation to the petitioner against respondent Nos.1 and 2. The findings of the Tribunal are based on the entire evidence on record. In view of the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner and the treatment taken by her, the award of Rs.79,000/- on all heads is quite just and reasonable. There are no circumstances to enhance the compensation as contended by the petitioner. This point is answered accordingly.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal can be enhanced on appeal?
Whether the quantum of Rs.79,000/- granted for pain and suffering and loss of earnings is reasonable?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Meka Chakra Rao v. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and othersReferred¶5
2001(1) ALT 495 (D.B.)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PETITIONER
RESPONDENT NO.1-OWNER OF THE CRIME VEHICLE
RESPONDENT NO.2-INSURER
SHAMEEM AKTHER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
