Malga Jagadish [Died] And 3 ORS v. A.Srinivas And ANR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD M.A.C.M.A. No.469 OF 2011 JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellants-petitioners aggrieved by the order and decree dated 29.06.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.496 of 2007 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, the Tribunal).

2.

During pendency of the O.P. before the Court below, the 1st appellant, who is the injured person in this case, died and the appellants Nos.2 to 4 herein were impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased 1st appellant.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that on 21.01.2007 while the 1st appellant was proceeding from Sagar Ring Raod, B.N.Reddy Nagar, on his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-29-G-2779 and after passing the Sagar Ring Road, near Ice factory, the driver of DCM Eicher B.No.AP24-V-4361 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the 1st appellant from the backside, due to which he sustained grievous injuries and multiplies fractures apart from other injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, where he was admitted as inpatient and thereafter, he was shifted to Apollo hospital for further treatment. Due to the accident, he was unable to move and stand and he was bedridden for a long period and needs costly medicines.

The police Vanasthalipuram also registered a case against the driver of the above DCM Eicher vehicle under Section 337 I.P.C. and later the Section of law was altered to 338 I.P.C. He was hale and healthy at the time of accident and working as driver-cum-owner of the goods vehicle and earning Rs.7,500/- per month. Due to the accident, he lost his earning capacity.

He has to main his family consisting of his wife and two children. Therefore, the appellants filed the aforesaid O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- against respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and the insurer of the aforesaid DCM Eicher.

4.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counters denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5.

After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of respondent No.1 and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- i.e., Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.1,25,000/- towards medical treatment, Rs.5,000/- towards damage of clothes, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income of the 1st petitioner during medical treatment.

6.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurance company. 7.

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that though the 1st appellant sustained grievous injuries apart from fracture injuries and to substantiate the same, he also examined P.Ws.3 and 4, Doctors, who treated him, the Tribunal did not consider the same and granted very meagre amount; that though 1st appellant was earning a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month prior to the accident by running goods vehicle, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- notionally without any basis; that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very low and hence, he prays to enhance the compensation.

8.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the same and hence, she prays to dismiss the appeal.

9.

Insofar as the injuries sustained the 1st appellant is concerned, the appellants have examined P.W.3-Doctor, who examined 1st appellant on 21.01.2017 and stated that the 1st appellants has admitted in his hospital with a history of road traffic accident and sustained the following injuries:

i) Fracture of right zygoma ii) Multiple fractures of ribs on both sides.

iii) Lung contusion and lacerated wound over the left inguinal region iv) Pelvic fracture v) Extra peritoneal repute of bladder and that all the above injuries are grievous in nature.

Apart from the evidence of P.W.3, the appellants have also produced Exs.A.3 to 9 medical bills and prescriptions to show that the 1st appellant has sustained injuries and they spent huge amount towards treatment. Therefore, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.3 coupled with Exs.A.3 to 6, medial bills, prescriptions etc., this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards three fracture injuries and Rs.20,000/- towards two grievous injuries. Further, the appellants are entitled to Rs.54,000/- towards medical bills and Rs.2,50,000/- towards treatment and expenditure as the 1st appellant was admitted in the hospital as inpatient for a long period and spent huge amount for treatment. Further, the 1st appellant is earning an amount of Rs.7,500/- per month prior to the accident by running goods vehicle and due to the accident, he could not attend his duties. Considering the same, an amount of Rs.22,500/- (Rs.7500/- x 3) is

awarded to the appellants as loss of income during treatment period. Apart from that the appellants also entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. The amount of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges awarded by the Tribunal are remain needs no interference by this Court. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled for Rs.4,31,500/- (Rs.60,000/- + Rs.20,000/- + Rs.54,000/- + Rs.2,50,000/- + Rs.22,500/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/-) towards compensation.

10.

In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,55,000/- to Rs.4,31,500/-. The appellants are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on enhanced compensation from the date of petition till realization, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others1. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount jointly and severally within three months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit the appellants are permitted to withdraw the same as per their entitlement. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand disposed of.

_________________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD, J AUGUST 07, 2019 YVL 1 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD M.A.C.M.A. No.469 OF 2011 Date:07.08.2019 YVL