Mogathala Krishna v. G. Venkateswarlu,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA M.A.C.M.A.No. 1326 of 2009 DATE: 28.07.2016 Between:

Mogathala Krishna .. Appellant/ Claim petitioner And G. Venkateswarlu and another .. Respondents

JUDGMENT:- The present appeal is preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the award of Rs.27,542/- towards compensation by the order and decree dated 28.07.2008 in M.V.O.P.No. 1340 of 2006 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Khammam (for short "the Tribunal") is very meager as the claim was laid for grant of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"), seeking enhancement.

2. The facts in brief are that on 25.08.2006, the petitioner along with his father visited their relatives at Pandithapuram, and while returning, when they were waiting at the said bus stop, a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.AP20 N 6991 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner coming from Yellandu towards Khammam, dashed him, due to which, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries.

He was immediately shifted to Srujan Ortho and Accident Care Hospital, Khammam for treatment. He was treated by Dr.P.N.V.S.V.Prasad who found that the petitioner

received fracture of subprochanter on right hip and abrasion injury to the back of right leg and he was hospitalized for 20 days and was advised to take six months' rest.

Claiming that he was put to lot of inconvenience during the post operative period and suffered mental agony, sought a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and also stated that he spent Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses.

3. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the motorcycle, filed his counter controverting rash and negligent driving attributed to him and on the ground that his vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent sought to dismiss the claim petition against him.

4. The 2nd respondent also filed counter affidavit opposing the claim raising various usual pleas.

5. On the basis of the said pleadings, the Tribunal has framed three issues in order to determine the compensation as well as the liability.

6. During inquiry before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner, he examined himself as PW1, besides examining one Dr.P.N.V.S.V.Prasad as PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A8.

On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined but copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1 on consent.

7. The Tribunal, on assessing the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and also basing on Exs.A1 to A4, recorded

a finding in favour of the petitioner on issue No.1.

8. On issue No.2, the Tribunal has not agreed with the stand as to spending of Rs.25,000/- covered by Ex.A4 - medical bills as it was not supported by the documents and only accepted Ex.A7 - medical bills showing an amount worth Rs.2,542/- and for the injuries sustained by the petitioner, a lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/- was granted towards permanent disability, and thus, granted a total amount Rs.27,542/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum.

9. The said order is now questioned on the ground that meager compensation was granted agitating the plea that the Tribunal ought to have given due weight to Exs.A4 to A7 and the evidence of PW2 and thereby sought to grant balance amount.

10. Heard Sri Goli Viplav Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

11. There is no representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent. Though service of notice was completed on the 1st respondent, none appears for the 1st respondent.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner whose submissions are based on the grounds agitated in the grounds of appeal, which are referred to above, perused the order and the evidence on record.

13. Irrespective of the fact that the disability is due to subprochanter, admittedly, the petitioner sustained

fracture to his right hip and an abrasion on his right leg. Therefore, the amount of Rs.25,000/- granted by the Tribunal for fracture of right hip is enhanced to Rs.40,000/- including pain and suffering.

The Tribunal has not granted any amount towards extra nourishment, therefore, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is granted towards extra nourishment. Certainly, the petitioner would have suffered from difficulty in his mobility as one of the main limbs is affected and would have required assistance. Therefore, towards attendant assistance, a sum of Rs.7,500/- is granted besides transportation charges of Rs.2,000/-. The petitioner was aged 22 years and eking out livelihood by being a daily wage worker. Certainly, even if the petitioner's income is taken at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month, he would have lost temporary earnings for at least six months. In that view of the matter, a sum of Rs.9,000/- is granted towards loss of temporary earnings. Thus, in all, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.63,500/- towards compensation as against the amount of Rs.27,542/- granted by the Tribunal.

14. The rate of interest at 7.5% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is maintained in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and Others v. Rajbir Singh and Others[1].

15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, and the order and decree, dated 28.07.2008, in M.V.O.P.No.

1340 of 2006, passed by the Tribunal are modified enhancing the compensation to Rs.63,500/- (Rupees Sixty Three Thousand Five Hundred Only) from Rs.27,542/- with interest at 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till realization. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel to the allowing of the Appeal in part, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

______________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA,J 28.07.2016 bcj [1] 2013 ACJ 1403