Partly allowed

Lateefuddin v. M/S.Jagadamba Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Telangana HC6 Jun 2018MACMA/572/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.29,000. The Court held that no compensation for 45% disability could be granted due to lack of a medical board certificate but awarded additional amounts for pain and suffering, extra nourishment, and transportation, enhancing total compensation to Rs.39,000.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.39,000 with 9% annual interest from the date of the petition till realization.

Lateefuddin Vs M/S.Jagadamba Engineering Pvt. Ltd… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.5 7 2 of 2 0 0 5

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

Aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.29,000/ - as against a claim of Rs.2,00,000/ - by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (‘the Tribunal’ for brevity), vide order, dated 29.11.2004, passed in O.P.No.838 of 1999, the claimant preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’, for brevity) seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶5

2 . Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant, the learned Standing Counsel for New India Assurance Company Limited representing the 2^nd respondent and perused the record.

¶6

3 . The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant would submit that the Tribunal awarded meagre amount as compensation in spite of the appellant-claimant suffering simple and grievous injuries. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation for 45% disability suffered by the appellantclaimant and ultimately prayed to allow the appeal as prayed for.

¶7

4 . On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for New India Assurance Company Limited representing the 2^nd respondent would submit that the Tribunal had taken all the factors into consideration and awarded just and reasonable amount towards compensation. Further, the Tribunal assigned

¶8

¶9

reasons for not granting compensation for the disability suffered by the appellant-claimant. There are no circumstances to vary the award and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶10

5 . There is no dispute with regard to the appellant-claimant suffering injuries in a motor accident that occurred on 08.01.1999 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruthi Car bearing registration No.AP-10-H-5002 belonging to the 1^st respondent. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the appellant/ claimant suffered the following injuries.

¶11

The appellant-claimant, by leading cogent and convincing evidence, established that he suffered the aforementioned injuries. The Tribunal had granted compensation to the appellant-claimant as mentioned hereunder:

¶12

1. Simple injury, i.e, abrasion Rs.1,000/ - 2. Fracture of lateral candyl of right Rs.5,000/ - tibia

¶13

Probable expenditure for the Rs.5,000/ - treatment of the injuries

¶14

4. Loss of earnings Rs.18,000/ - TOTAL Rs.2 9 ,0 0 0 / -

¶15

6 . It is contended on behalf of the appellant-claimant that the appellant-claimant suffered 45% disability and that the Tribunal has not granted any compensation for the same. The Tribunal, while dealing with this aspect, held that P.W.2–Dr.T.Narsing Rao is in the habit of issuing disability certificates at Nizamabad for whoever approaches him and that if really the appellant-claimant had sustained disability, he ought to have appeared before the Medical Board at Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad

¶16

¶17

and obtained disability certificate. Admittedly, no disability certificate is filed, except the oral testimony of P.W.2– Dr.T.Narsing Rao that the appellant-claimant suffered 45% disability. Except the self-serving statement of P.W.1 and the statement of P.W.2-Dr.T.Narsing Rao, there is no other evidence with regard to the disability suffered by the appellant-claimant assessed by a competent medical board. Moreover, the fracture suffered by the appellant-claimant was to right Tibia. In most of the cases, it would not cause permanent or partial disability. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in not granting any compensation to the appellant-claimant for the disability said to have been sustained by him.

¶18

7 . However, the Tribunal did not grant compensation towards pain and suffering. As seen from the evidence on record, the appellant-claimant suffered fracture to his right Tibia and other injuries. So, this Court deems it appropriate to award an amount of Rs.9,000/ - towards pain and suffering and an amount of Rs.1,000/ - towards extra nourishment and transportation charges to the appellant-claimant, in addition to the compensation granted by the Tribunal. Thus, the appellantclaimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.39,000/ - (Rupees thirty nine thousand only) (Rs.29,000/ - granted by the Tribunal + Rs.9,000/ - + Rs.1,000/ -). The Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, which is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶19

¶20

8 . Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part modifying the order, dated 29.11.2004, passed by the Tribunal, enhancing the compensation from Rs.29,000/ - to Rs.39,000/ - with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation on the enhanced compensation amount. On deposit of the compensation, the appellant-claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount and interest. The other terms of the Order under challenge remain unaltered.

¶21

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶22

No order as to costs.

¶23

______________________
Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J
06 th June, 2018
Bvv

Lateefuddin v. M/S.Jagadamba Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lateefuddin v. M/S.Jagadamba Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

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

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by Bm, Secunderabad Vs Pullyala Ram Bhoopal Reddy and Another

Kanneboina Lingaiah Vs S. Rama Rao and Another

Pullyala Ram Bhoopal Reddy Vs P.Suresh Goud and Another

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Kasu Lavanya , Manjula

The United India Insurance Comp.Ltd. Vs Lingala Raghunatha Reddy and Anr.

Jonnalagadda Prabhakara Rao and 3 Others Vs Vallabu Venkatramana and Another