Judgment · High Court

This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the petitioner- claimant, a 75 years old business man, against the order and decree, dated 24.09.2003 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in O.P.No.33/2001.

Heard.

The brief facts are as follows: On 24.10.1999 at about 11.30 a.m., while the petitioner was crossing road near Anand Theatre, Secunderabad, a car bearing No.APY 2965 came from Begumpet side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him. He fell down and sustained bleeding injuries. He was shifted to Newciti Hospital, Secunderabad, where he took treatment as inpatient for three days. X.ray revealed that there was fracture of right thigh. On the advice of doctors, he was shifted to Chella Nursing Home, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, where he underwent surgery and he was discharged on 31.10.1999. He became permanently disabled. He underwent treatment at Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur at Rajasthan also. He claimed compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs. A counter was filed by the first respondent driver contending that the accident has taken place on account of the petitioner, who tried to cross the road negligently at an advanced age. The compensation claimed is very high. The third respondent insurance company also filed counter denying the claim. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:

Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No.APY 2965 by its driver?

2. What is the just amount that can be awarded as compensation and against whom?

3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 the owner of the vehicle was examined. After considering the material on record, the Court below granted compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimant preferred this appeal.

Heard both sides.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has spent substantial amount for the purpose of treatment as he was aged around 75 years. His injuries could not be healed fast, on account of that he has to take treatment for longer period and on account of his age, he became permanently disabled due to injuries. Thus, the court below inspite of holding that he might have spent around Rs.1.00 lakh maximum for treatment, granted compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh only, nothing was granted towards other heads, i.e., pain and suffering, permanent disability etc.

As seen from the Judgment, at page 7, the learned trial Judge observed as follows…

It can be safely held that he must have spent about Rs.1.00 at the maximum towards his medical treatment and also for extra nourishment, attendant charges and transport expenses. This conclusion can be drawn considering the evidence of P.W.2, the medical doctor, who has spoken regarding the treatment given to P.W.1 in New Citi Hospital, Secunderabad, Chella Nursing Home, Ameerpet, Hyderabad and also in Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

The trial Court also held at Para (b) page 7 as follows… “In addition it, the petitioner is also entitled compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering.” Still, the trial Court granted compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh only ignoring the amount of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering.

Now, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on account of the age of the petitioner, he must have suffered some permanent disability due to accident, which would be most inconvenient at his age and that would require assistance through out. Thus, an amount of Rs.50,000/- can be granted towards pain and suffering and permanent disability he suffered requiring attendance through out his life.

Considering the above circumstances, compensation is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- from Rs.1.00 lakh, i.e. by granting another amount of Rs.50,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall bear interest at 6% per annum through out.

The C.M.A. is accordingly partly allowed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 23rd September 2010, Rns