Dr.Matcha Ravichandra v. Sanuku Raju , Yesu

SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI M.A.C.M.A.No.285 of 2008 JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.466 of 2002 assailing the award dated 18.10.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srikakulam (for short 'The Tribunal'), on the grounds that the Tribunal did not consider the crush injuries sustained by the claimant and did not consider the shortening of the limb; the Tribunal ought to have seen that the claimant lost his marriage prospects due to the said injury; the Tribunal did not accept Ex.A.7, which showed 50% disability; the Tribunal ought to have accepted the evidence that the claimant is aged 29 years and earning Rs.20,000/- per month; Ex.A.12 shows that the claimant spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenditure and amounts awarded under other heads are also inadequate.

2.

At the hearing, none appears for the respondents. 3.

The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant argues that the appellant-claimant suffered disability as stated by P.W.2, but he is not in a position to extend any argument with regard to admission made by P.W.1 himself that he was attending his works without any assistance. In the light of the said evidence, any amount of evidence adduced on the aspect of disability cannot entitle the appellantclaimant for any loss of future income, though it may entitle him for loss of future amenities. The Tribunal has adequately compensated the appellant-claimant towards loss of future amenities, by granting

TR, J MACMA No.285 of 2008 Rs.1,50,000/-; hence the limping which is stated by the appellantclaimant is also adequately compensated. The medical bills, which were filed by the appellant-claimant, were marked as Exs.A.12 and A.15. Ex.A.13 are only advance receipts. Ex.A.12 are cash bills. Hence, while calculating medical expenditure, only Exs.A.12 and A.15 have to be taken into consideration. The amounts under the said two exhibits come to Rs.1,23,542/-. The Tribunal, however, awarded only Rs.1 lakh, though it had accepted that the appellant-claimant cannot be found fault with, because his life is more precious and he being a professional, i.e. M.S. (Surgery) would go for better treatment and that though medical expenses are exorbitant, they are required for cure of the injuries.

As the award made by the Tribunal towards medical expenses counters its own observations, this court awards Rs.1,23,542/-, which is the amount under the medical bills filed by the appellant-claimant. Similarly, the Tribunal elaborately discussed about the rent receipts, which are marked as Ex.A.19, but awarded only Rs.20,000/-. It also accepted that 9 months is the period of treatment and recovery of the appellant-claimant. It also observed that he would have to stay outside because he underwent operation in four different spells and he cannot be expected to travel all the way back and again go to the hospital at Bangalore. But, it did not specify any reason for awarding only Rs.20,000/-. It also came to a conclusion that the room rent would be Rs.150/- per day, which would come to Rs.

4,500/- per month and that he would have stayed in the said room without taking house outside, by paying Rs.5,500/- per month.

TR, J MACMA No.285 of 2008 inherently inconsistent. Having accepted that the appellant-claimant took treatment for 9 months, it ought to have awarded adequate amount, taking at least Rs.4,500/- per month as the room rent. Further, this court does not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.6, who is the owner of the house, in which the appellantclaimant stayed during his period of treatment. Rs.5,500/- is stated to be the room rent per month. Rs.5,500/- x 9 months would come to Rs.49,500/-, which the claimant would be entitled to, under the head 'expenses incurred by the claimant towards room rent.' This court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal on any other count. Hence, in addition to the award of the Tribunal, the appellantclaimant would be entitled to Rs.53,042/-, which is rounded off to Rs.53,000/-.

4.

In the result, the appeal is disposed of, awarding Rs.53,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The award shall relate back to the date of the decree and the enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate specified and from the time indicated in the award of the Tribunal. Proportionate costs are ordered.

Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the appeal stand closed.

___________ T. RAJANI, J March 24, 2017 MRR