High Court dismissed appeals by claimant and insurance company against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs.2,20,376/-, upholding 20% disability assessment despite medical record suggesting 60%.
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.NOs.803 OF 2006 AND 3866 OF 2008
COMMON JUDGMENT :
These two appeals, one by the claimant and another by the Insurance Company, are filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, aggrieved by the order, dated 24.12.2005, in O.P.No.790 of 2003, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Karimnagar, whereby compensation of Rs.2,20,376/- was granted in favour of the claimant with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
2
3.Fracture of neck of third meta carpals and shaft of second meta-carpal.
Ex.A3 is the wound certificate of the claimant, which reveals the injuries mentioned above. Further, there is also evidence of P.W.4, who is a Member of District Medical Board that he examined the claimant on 21.10.2003 and issued disability certificate showing disability as 60%. Ex.A13-disability certificate corroborates his evidence. P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 deposed about the nature of occupation of the claimant i.e., the claimant was running a cable net work at the relevant point of time. They also deposed about the licence and other details of the claimant for doing such business and his monthly income. The Tribunal after analyzing the evidence of these witnesses, came to a conclusion that the monthly income of the claimant was Rs.3,000/-. The Tribunal had assigned reasons for determining the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.3,000/- as the claimant was running a cable net work in a small village. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in
3
determining the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.3,000/-.
4
made by both sides do not merit consideration to vary the award passed by the Tribunal.
__________________________
DR.SHAMEEM AKTHER, J
DATED: 05-06-2018
Hsd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the compensation of Rs.2,20,376/- granted by the Tribunal is liable to be reduced or enhanced?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.Jayanna v K.Radha Krishna Reddy and AnotherApplied¶17
M.JAYANNA V K.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY AND ANOTHER (2005 ACJ 344)
Claimant
Insurance Company
Shameem Akther
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
