This appeal by a motor accident victim sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The High Court, referencing Supreme Court observations on human dignity, enhanced the award from Rs. 2,87,438 to Rs. 4,87,438 due to serious injuries including loss of hearing and vision.
Compensation enhanced from Rs. 2,87,438 to Rs. 4,87,438.
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.
[32s8 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
MOTOR ACCIDE T CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2092 OF 2018
Appeal filed under Section 173 of Ivl.V. Act,'1988 aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 27.02.2018 passed in II/.V.O.P.No.1054 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Between:
N Suresh, S/o N. Yadagiri Aged 39 Years, Occupation Private Employe Resident of H.No.1-2-271711 170, Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.
...APPELLANT/PETITIONER
't 'ANII,
...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY
Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Sri CH. RAVINDER
Counsel for Respondent No.1 : None appeared
The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
M.A.C.M.A. No.2O92 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
The appellant herein is the petitioner in O.P.No.1O54 of 2Ol2 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-XIVAddl. Chief Judge, City Civii Court, Hyderabad. Being aggrieved by the award in M.V.O.P.No.1O54 of 2072, dated 27.O2.2018 whereunder the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,87,438/- together with costs and interest @ 7.5o/o per annum as compensation on account of injuries caused to him in a road traffic accident, the appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act ald sought for enhancement of compensation.
2
body. Therefore, thepetitioner has filed the above said petition against the rider of the bikeard Insurance Cqmpany form which apolicy was obtained for the motor bike and the appellantsought an amount of Rs.5,O0,0OO/- on various heads
3
A 13 are marked. The Tribunal having considered oral evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and the documents namely Ex.Al to A13 which includes discharge summary from Yashoda Hospital, discharge summary from Medwin hospital and other medical record, awarded a sum of Rs.2,87,438/-.
7 . Nou, the point for consideration is :
Whether the appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation?
Before adverting to the merits of the appeal before considering the arguments advanced by the learned coun sel it ,,r'ould be better to make mention about the
recent judgnrent of the Hon'bie Apex Court in Sidram us
4
Divisionq.l Manager, United India Insurance Compang Limited. and anotherr. In the above referred judgment ' while disposing the petition filcd by the injured/victim of a road traffic. accident, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased . to observe as follows:
"The process of determining the compensation by the Court is essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science. perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of injury and disability. Money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered."
"The measure of ...compensation must reflect a Hbnuineattempt of the law to restorethe dignity o{ the. being. Our yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not law's doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute entitlements under law."
| 2023 3 SCC 439
5
accident, the appellant herein was admitted in a hospital and as per the evidence of PW3 the appellant was treated as inpatient and spent a sum of Rs.1,12,4g3/-. The evidence on record placed through pWs 2 to 4 clearly shows that the appellant suffered loss of hearing and the nature of injuries leads to disfigurement in facial expressions and talking.
6
r'l
appeilant cannot close left eye and deviation of angle of mouth to right side.
1-1: Accoiding to PW2 the injuries suffered by the appellant leads to disfiguration in facial expression and talking and he ca-nnot perform his functions as he was doing prior to the accident. Therefore, the evidence produced by the appeliant before the trial Court clearly shows that the accident caused him a grave loss which includes loss of hearing in both ears and effected eye sight.
. 12. - I{owever, the trial,Court having considered the above referred.oral evidence, awarded a meager sum of Rs.2,a7,43Bl- which includes medical expenses of Rs.1,12,483/-. The Tribunal while allowing the petition awarded Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.10,OO0/- towards miscellaneous expenditure and for extra nourishment which is highly on lower side. As could be seen form the award, the Tribunal while considering the claim of the appellant that he was unable to attend his duties for 6 months, granted a sum gf R .66,Qoo/- ,and Rs.5O,0O0/* for the above said injuiies.
7
As a sequel, pending Miscellaleous Applications, if any, shall starrd closed.
Sd/- P.CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTAryI REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// C_fD SECT1ON OFFICER
To,
Njb w
I I I
HIGH COURT
DATED:0710812023
JUDGMENT+ DECREE
MACMA.No.2092 of 2018
1$g STAIe
(
o
o 2I N0! ?021 .b
t
t
OFSpf^I
PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA
+
AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2092 OF 2018
Between:
N Suresh, S/o. N. Yadagiri Aged 39 Years, Occupation Private Employe Resident of H.No.1-2-271711 170, Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad.
...APPELLANT/PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS
Appeal filed under Section 1 73 of M.V. Act, 1988 aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 27.02.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1054 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below, the material papers in the Original Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri CH. RAVINDER, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and none appeared for Respondent No.1.
-7
This Court doth Judgment and Decree as follows:-
Sd/- P.CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASStSTAryI- REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// afi SECT-ION OFFICER
To,
Njb \P
HIGH COURT
DATED:0710812023
DEGREE
MACMA.No.2092 of 2018
PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA
--^\ ,(9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal?
Whether the compensation awarded reflects the genuine loss of hearing, vision, and disfigurement suffered?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sidram vs Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company LimitedReferred¶39
Sidram vs Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N Suresh
Akshay Sanjay Sapkal
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Sambasiva Rao Naidu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
