Judgment · High Court · 2010

Judgment

This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant- claimant against the order and decree, dated 19.09.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, in O.P.No.923/1997.

#2. Heard.

#3. The facts are as follows: The claimant was aged about 40 years. He was doing business in brass utensils. He suffered fracture of right leg in an accident. On 15.09.1997 at about 11.00 a.m. at Nizamabad while he was standing at old LIC building Chowrastha, Nizamabad, watching the Ganesh Immersion procession, a lorry bearing No.APT 7920 went without blowing horn in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed him. He suffered injuries to his left leg, right leg and fracture of right hand also. He spent substantial money treatment and he was inpatient Government Hospital, as well as private hospital. He claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The respondent insurance company filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:

#1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.APT-7920 by its driver?

#2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined

and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked, which include copy of FIR, wound certificate etc. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. Considering the material on record, the learned trial Judge granted total compensation of Rs.44,000/- calculating Rs.5,000/- for medicines, Rs.3,000/- towards conveyance and extra nourishment, Rs.25,000/- towards fracture and Rs.6,000/- towards two simple injuries and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering.

#4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant is that the compensation awarded is inadequate as he suffered fracture apart from other injuries.

#5. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent – insurance company is that the compensation awarded is adequate.

#6. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal?

#7. There appears to be no dispute with regard to facts, that is about the offending vehicle hitting the victim, he suffered injuries in the accident, which include a fracture.

#8. The learned trial Judge awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards fracture and Rs.6,000/- for two simple injuries. Rs.5,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering. No amount is awarded towards treatment. Though medical bills for substantial amount were not filed and part of the treatment was taken in Government Hospital, the petitioner must have spent some money for treatment and attendants for some time. He must have been out of work for some more time. Considering these circumstances, another amount of Rs.6,000/- can be awarded. Thus, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.44,000/- awarded by the Court below. As such, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.6,000/-, which comes to total Rs.50,000/-. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation shall be @ 6% per annum.

#9. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. No order as to costs. 23rd August 2010, Rns ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J.