Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
Ninala Jayasurya, J.
T.hemasundara Reddy - Appellant
Versus
T.N. jaya Narayana Reddy - Respondent
M.A.C.M.A. No. 3512 of 2005
Decided On : 30-07-2021
MOTOR ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - ENHANCEMENT - INJURIES SUSTAINED - GRIEVOUS - PERMANENT DISABILITY - MEDICAL EXPENSES - TRANSPORTATION CHARGES - EXTRA NOURISHMENT - ATTENDANT CHARGES - PAIN AND SUFFERING - LOSS OF EARNINGS - SECOND SURGERY - INTEREST - AWARDED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/petitioner sustained grievous injuries, including fractures to his left shoulder and left thigh, in a motor accident caused by the respondent's bus. He filed a claim for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Claims Tribunal), which awarded him Rs.1,25,000/-. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation, the appellant preferred an appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving the permanent disability certificate issued by a doctor who had not treated the appellant prior to its issuance. However, the Court relied on the evidence of another doctor who had treated the appellant and testified about the severity of his injuries, including the shortening of his left leg and the need for a second surgery.
Issues: 1. Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving the permanent disability certificate issued by a doctor who had not treated the appellant prior to its issuance? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was adequate in light of the appellant's grievous injuries and permanent disability?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the Claims Tribunal was justified in disbelieving the permanent disability certificate issued by a doctor who had not treated the appellant prior to its issuance. However, the Court found that the evidence of another doctor who had treated the appellant and testified about the severity of his injuries was credible and reliable. 2. The High Court held that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was inadequate in light of the appellant's grievous injuries and permanent disability. The Court considered the nature of the appellant's injuries, the need for a second surgery, and the impact of his injuries on his ability to work and earn a living.
Final Decision: The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant from Rs.1,25,000/- to Rs.3,88,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The Court directed the respondents to deposit the enhanced compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment.
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is preferred by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the order and decree dated 05.09.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.169 of 2003 passed by the II Additional District Judge- cum-Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madanapalle (hereinafter referred to as ‘Claims Tribunal’), wherein, an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was awarded as against the total claim of Rs.4,00,000/- towards the compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant/petitioner.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Claims Tribunal in the original petition.
3. The petitioner filed the above said O.P., stating inter alia that on 06.01.2003 when he was returning to his home, after attending duty on his motor cycle bearing No.AP02-G-4224 and reached Sugalimitta bus stop on Punganuru-Madanapalle main road, a bus bearing No.AP03-U-4309 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, hit him while trying to overtake, as a result he fell down and sustained grievous injuries including the fractures over his left shoulder and left thigh. It is further stated that the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Punganuru and from there to an Orthopedic Surgeon by name Dr.M.Sanjeevarayudu and again from there to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore for expert treatment. While stating that he took treatment by spending Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to Rs.15,000/- for transportation and for other expenses, he further stated in the said O.P., that he could not regain normal health, sustained permanent disability and also suffered loss of earnings as a result of the accident. Accordingly, he claimed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation along with the interest @ 18% p.a., against the respondents.
4. The 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle remained exparte and the 2nd respondent-insurance company filed its counter and contested the matter. The insurance company while denying that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle contended that the petitioner himself is responsible for the accident as he was negligent in driving the motor cycle. It is also contended that the compensation as claimed by the petitioner is excessive and that he is not entitled for the compensation as prayed for.
5. On the basis of the pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed the relevant issues for consideration.
6. In support of his case, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1, got examined P.Ws.2 & 3 i.e., Dr.M.Sanjeevarayudu and Dr.K.M.K.Varma and got marked Exs.A1 to A13.
7. The 2nd respondent-insurance company had not adduced any oral evidence, got marked Ex.B1-Copy of policy by consent.
8. The Claims Tribunal after considering the contentions advanced by both the parties and examining the material on record by an order dated 05.09.2005 has allowed the claim of the petitioner in part. Challenging the said award to the extent which is adverse to the petitioner, the appeal has been preferred, seeking enhancement of compensation.
9. Heard Sri P.Rambhoopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant. While briefly narrating the facts of the case, he inter alia contended that the accident in question occurred when the claimant was going on his scooter and the offending lorry referred to above hit the scooter while overtaking and due to the said accident, the petitioner/claimant suffered fractures to his left shoulder and left leg apart from injuries all over the body. He submitted that, initially, the petitioner was taken to a hospital at Punganuru and thereafter to another hospital, from there to Manipal Hospital at Bangalore. He submits that screws were inserted to the petitioner/claimant and he was in hospital for several months, advised to take rest, not to lift any weights and his movement is restricted to wheel chair due to shortening of leg. He submits that meager amounts were awarded by the Claims Tribunal and though the medical bills in respect of the expenditure incurred
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
