Judgment · High Court · 2010

Judgment

This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District, in O.P.No.620/2000. Petitioner – Claimant is the appellant herein.

#2. Heard.

#3. The case of the petitioner is as follows: On 22.04.2000 at about 7.30 a.m. when the petitioner and some others were traveling in an auto bearing No. AP-23T-5144 from Muthangi village to Rudraram village to attend labour work, on the way, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto, the auto fell down, the petitioner suffered injuries. She was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment. A case in Cr.No.69 of 2000 under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC was registered for the accident. In the accident, the petitioner suffered several injuries including fracture of

clavicle. She claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/-. First respondent remained exparte and the second respondent filed counter denying the allegations of the petition. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:

#1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation and interest, if any, and, if so to what amount and at what rate and for what period?

#2. Whether the R1 and R2 are liable to pay any part of monies covered by issue No.1, supra?

#3. To what relief?

#4. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced and Ex.B1 was marked. On the basis of the material on record, the trial court finding that the petitioner suffered fracture of clavicle apart from other injuries and disbelieving the evidence of P.W.2, the medical officer, who examined the victim after 3½ years of the accident, granted compensation of Rs.20,000/-.

#5. Now, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the compensation awarded is inadequate and whether the petitioner is entitled for higher compensation?

#6. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the petitioner was aged around 15 years and on account of the injuries she suffered in the accident, she has to suffer through out her life, in case there is no proper healing of the same. Ex.A3, the medical certificate shows that the petitioner suffered two injuries of which one was diffused swelling and tenderness over the left clavicle and X.ray revealed fracture in the cellus middle 3rd of clavicle. The petitioner was admitted to Gandhi Hospital, she must have spent some money towards attendant charges, traveling expenses etc. and she must have suffered at least some disability on account of fracture of clavicle. As such, under all heads put together, the petitioner can be granted another amount of Rs.20,000/- apart from the award of Rs.20,000/- granted by the court below.

#7. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation is at 6% per annum.

#8. Accordingly, C.M.A. is partly allowed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 16th November 2010, Rns