Judgment · High Court · 2010

Judgment

This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the judgment the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Warangal, O.P.No.676/99. Petitioner - Claimant is the appellant.

#2. Heard.

#3. The brief facts are as follows: On 31.10.1998 at about 4.30 p.m. while the petitioner was going on a motorcycle, auto bearing No. AP 12T 4260 coming from opposite direction at high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle, on account of which the petitioner fell down and received fracture of right knee and other injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to MGM hospital, Warangal, where he took treatment upto 15.11.1998 and a surgery was performed to his right leg there and on account of the injury, he has become crippled and he was unable to ride bicycle etc. Respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte and third respondent filed counter denying the petition allegations. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:

#1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle?

#2. Whether the petitioner sustained any injuries and disability and is entitled to claim compensation? If so to what amount and from whom?

#3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. On the basis of the material on record, the court below awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/-, out of which, Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of earnings. Aggrieved by the above quantum, the present appeal is filed.

#4. Now, the only question is whether the petitioner is entitled for higher compensation?

#5. There is no dispute that the petitioner was injured in the accident and he suffered fracture on right patella. P.W.2 the medical officer has also spoken about the same. His evidence also reveals that the petitioner was hospitalized for 15 days. A surgery was performed for his injured patella. It cannot be disputed that fracture of patella is somewhat serious injury being a movable and delicate part of the body. When there is fracture of patella, the petitioner would suffer disability temporary as well as some permanent. The Court below has not at all granted any amount towards disability. The total amount awarded Rs.30,000/-. In view of the fact that the petitioner was hospitalized for a period of fifteen days and spent money for treatment, attendant etc. for his fracture and as he must have been out of work on account of the injury and there is some permanent disability, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.60,000/- instead of Rs.30,000/-.

#6. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation is at 6% per annum. The petitioner is entitled to withdraw the amount as and when deposited. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 30th November 2010, Rns