THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.896 OF 2007 Date: 09.07.2014 Between:
Loka Laxman … Appellant And
1. L. Chinnaiah
2. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Gepiaza Road, Yerrawada, Pune-411006 (Maharashtra State) … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.896 OF 2007 JUDGMENT:
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.O.P.No.188 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III-Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Nizamabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), the claimant preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of the same.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.
For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
The facts in issue are as under:
The claimant/appellant filed an application under Section 166 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of the Rules framed thereunder claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that took place on 19.9.2004. On the said day, while the claimant was attending the calls of nature, a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Regn. No.AP 25 L 1536 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and high speed came and dashed the claimant. As a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries. According to him, he sustained fractures to left leg, left hand and other multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately he was shifted to the Government Hospital where he was treated by a Medical Officer. According to him, he has spent an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards medicines and other incidental charges. It is stated that since the claimant sustained injuries to his hand and leg, he was not in a position to do any work thereby put to a lot of loss and suffering. In respect of the above incident, a case was registered. Since the 1st respondent is the owner of the Hero Honda Motorcycle and as the said vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent, the claimant filed the M.V.O.P.No.188 of 2005 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only).
Both the respondents remained ex parte during the course of trial.
Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal below framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.AP25 L 1536?
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
(3) To what relief?
In support of the claim, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined the Doctor, who treated him, as P.W.2, apart from marking Exs.A1 to A7.
After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal below held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Hero Honda Motorcycle (crime vehicle) and holding so, awarded a compensation of Rs.33,200/-.
The said findings have become final as the same was not challenged either by the Insurance Company or by the owner of the vehicle.
The only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation of Rs.33,200/- awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable, just and fair.
In order to prove the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, the claimant examined the Doctor, who treated him, as P.W.2. P.W.2 in his evidence deposed that he had examined the claimant in a private hospital on 19.9.2004 and found fracture of tibia of left leg with an abrasion on right leg. Due to the said fracture, an operation was conducted on 26.09.2004 for close reduction and internal fixation. Interlocking grill was alone done. Ex.A3 is the injury certificate and Ex.A4 is the receipt of amount collected by the hospital. Ex.A5 medical bills show the purchase of medicines prescribed by P.W.2 in Ex.A6.
Since both the respondents remained ex parte, oral evidence of P.W.2 remained challenged. Therefore the Tribunal accepted the evidence of P.W.2 while awarding compensation. In fact, P.W.2 was also working as Duty Medical Officer in Government Hospital when the claimant was treated in the said hospital at the initial stage. On considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal below awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for grievous injury and Rs.1,000/- each for two simple injuries sustained by the claimant. Taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A5 medical bills (15 in number) marked through him, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.13,050/- towards expenditure, a sum of Rs.9,109/- for the treatment taken by the claimant in the said hospital under P.W.2., a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.1,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.1,000/- towards pain and suffering. Thus, in all the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.33,159/- rounded to Rs.33,200/- as compensation.
The learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and hence seeks enhancement of the same.
A perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 would show that the claimant got himself admitted in the hospital on 19.9.2004 and thereafter he underwent an operation on 26.9.2004. The said operation done to the claimant was with regard to fracture of tibia of left leg. The said injury appears to be grievous in nature as the claimant was made to take treatment for a sufficiently for a long time in the hospital. That being the position, I am of the opinion that a further sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) can be awarded as compensation for the grievous injury sustained by P.W.1. Apart from that, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards pain and suffering for the injuries sustained by the claimant. As seen from the evidence on record, the claimant sustained one grievous injury and two simple injuries, was an in-patient in the hospital for quite sometime and during the said period he underwent an operation on 26.9.2004. He must have been put to lot of mental agony and trauma during the said period. Therefore, taking into consideration the mental agony which the claimant must have undergone, I am of the view that a further sum of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) can be awarded towards pain and suffering.
It appears that the Tribunal did not award any amount towards extra nourishment and attendant charges. Since the claimant underwent major operation and was bed-ridden for sometime, he must have engaged an attender to attend on him, at least for his day to day activities. The evidence of P.W.2 itself would disclose that the claimant was an in-patient in the hospital from 19.9.2004 to 7.10.2004. Therefore, he must have taken the help of an attendant and also spent some money towards extra nourishment. Hence, a further sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) can be awarded towards extra nourishment and attendant charges. While confirming the compensation awarded under other counts, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.33,200/- (Rupees Thirty three thousand and two hundred only) to Rs.49,200/- (Rupees Forty nine thousand and two hundred only).
In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.33,200/- (Rupees Thirty three thousand and two hundred only) to Rs.49,200/- (Rupees Forty nine thousand and two hundred only) to be paid jointly and severally by the respondents 1 & 2. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR,J Dt 09.07.2014 gbs