Telangana High Court
Billa Siddulu vs The New India Assurance Co Ltd on 7 August, 2018
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
M.A.C.M.A.No.2686 of 2005
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the grant of compensation of Rs.1,14,619/- as against a claim of Rs.5,00,000/- by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad ('the Tribunal', for brevity), vide order, dated 05.05.2005, passed in O.P.No.662 of 2002, the claimant preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act', for brevity) seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant-claimant, the learned Standing Counsel for the New India Assurance Company Limited representing the 1st respondent and perused the record.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant would contend that the appellant-claimant suffered lacerated wound over the upper eyelid, dislocation of right shoulder, fracture of humerus and pain and tenderness in the right hip bone in the subject accident. He also suffered injury to the testicles, which is grievous in nature. There is evidence of P.W.1 that one of the testicles of the appellant-claimant was removed. His marriage prospects have come down. The Tribunal granted Rs.1,14,619/- as compensation on different heads, which is meagre and ultimately prayed to enhance the compensation as claimed.
4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal had taken all the relevant factors into consideration and awarded 2 just and reasonable amount as compensation. There are no circumstances to interfere with the same and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the Order under challenge.
5. It is not in dispute that the appellant-claimant suffered injuries in the accident occurred on 16.01.2002, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tipper lorry bearing registration No.AP-31-T-4668. It is also not in dispute that the said offending vehicle was validly insured with the 1st respondent- Insurance Company as on the date of accident. So, the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant-claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation.
6. To substantiate the claim of appellant-claimant, he himself deposed as P.W.1, got examined P.W.2-Dr.Jaya Prakash and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.12. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the respondents. P.W.1 (appellant- claimant) deposed with regard to the injuries suffered by him in the subject accident. He deposed that one of his testicles was removed and another was likely to be removed, and an operation was required to be conducted. However, P.W.2-Dr.Jaya Prakash did not speak about the removal of one of the testicles, as stated by the appellant-claimant. He deposed that P.W.1 can continue his marital life. As per Ex.A.9-Wound Certificate issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Banswada, the appellant- claimant suffered a lacerated wound of 3" x 2" x 1" on the upper eyelid, suspected fracture, dislocation of right shoulder, fracture of humerus, pain and tenderness in the right hip bone and degloring injury exposed testis. P.W.2-doctor deposed that he had examined 3 the appellant-claimant on 16.01.2002 and found swelling and deformity in the right arm 7 x 4 cms and open wound over right scrotum 3 x 2 cms on right upper lid. He further stated that the appellant-claimant was having intra abdominal bleeding and he underwent surgery. There is no mention in the evidence of P.W.2- doctor about the removal of one of the testicles of the appellant- claimant. Removal of one of the testicles, as contended by the appellant-claimant, is not supported by any medical record. The Tribunal also disbelieved the same.
7. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire material on record, granted Rs.50,000/- towards disability, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.59,619/- towards medical expenses as per Ex.A.12 medical bills. In all, the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.1,14,619/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The Tribunal granted just and reasonable amount as compensation on different heads mentioned above. However, the Tribunal did not grant any amount towards loss of earnings, extra-nourishment, transportation and attendant charges. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to grant an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment. It is contended that the appellant-claimant was a tailor and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and due to the injuries suffered by him in the subject accident, he lost his earnings. Considering the same, this Court deems it appropriate to take the income of the appellant-claimant as Rs.2,000/- per month. Due to the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant-claimant in the subject accident, 4 it can be safely held that he would not have worked for a period of six (06) months. Hence, an amount of Rs.12,000/- is granted towards loss of earnings @ Rs.2,000/- per month for six months. Thus, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,41,619/-, as detailed below.
1. Towards disability Rs.50,000/-
2. Towards pain and suffering Rs.5,000/-
3. Towards medical expenses Rs.59,619/-
4. Towards transportation charges Rs.5,000/-
5. Towards extra-nourishment Rs.10,000/-
6. Towards loss of earnings Rs.12,000/-
TOTAL Rs.1,41,619/-
The Tribunal granted interest @ 7.5% per annum on the amount granted as compensation, which is just and reasonable.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part, modifying the order, dated 05.05.2005, passed in O.P.No.662 of 2002 by the Tribunal, enhancing the compensation payable to the appellant- claimant from Rs.1,14,619/- to Rs.1,41,619/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum throughout, from the date of petition till realisation. The other terms of the Order under challenge remain unaltered. On deposit of the compensation, the appellant-claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with interest accrued thereon.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J th 07 August, 2018 Bvv