AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.—Aggrieved by the award in M.V.O.P. No. 54 of 2007 dated 03-10-2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Court, East Godavari at Kakinada (for short, ''the Tribunal''), as inadequate, the claimant preferred the instant M.A.C.M.A. The factual matrix of the case is thus:
a) The claimant, who is a resident of D. Polavaram Village, Tuni Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, went to Anakapalli on his work on 13-07-2006 and on completion of work, on that night, he reached Tuni at about 11:00 p.m. and boarded an auto bearing No. AP 5 TT 1871 to go to his village. On the way, the driver of the auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner and thereby, the auto turned turtle. In the resultant accident, the petitioner suffered fracture of his left thigh besides other injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to the Nursing Home of Dr. Suresh Kumar at Tuni and thereafter, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kakinada, where he took inpatient treatment for his fracture injury. The petitioner claims to have suffered disability in his left leg. He contends that the auto driver was responsible for the accident. On these averments, the claimant filed O.P. No. 54 of 2007 claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- against respondents 1 to 3 who are driver, owner and insurer of the offending auto.
b) Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent-insurance company filed counter and opposed the claim.
c) During trial, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A3 and Ex. C1 were marked on behalf of claimant. R.W. 1 was examined and Ex. B1 was marked on behalf of 3rd respondent.
d) Award shows that considering the oral evidence of P.W. 1 coupled with Exs. A1 to A3, the Tribunal held that fault lies with the auto driver.
e) Then regarding compensation, considering the evidence of P.W. 1-claimant and P.W. 2-Dr. S. Ramesh Chandra, Professor, Orthopedic Surgeon, G.G.H., Kakinada, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 37,500/- under different heads as detailed below:
Hence, the appeal by the claimant.
Heard both sides.
Learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that though the claimant suffered 10% disability as deposed by P.W. 2 - Doctor, the Tribunal did not grant any compensation and hence, the claimant is entitled to compensation for his disability.
Per contra, while admitting that the claimant suffered disability and no compensation was awarded for his disability, learned counsel for 3rd respondent-insurance company argued that even according to P.W. 2, the disability is only a temporary one and it can be cured by physiotherapy and hence, there is no need to grant compensation. He further argued that in case compensation is awarded in this appeal for his disability, interest on such amount may be awarded at 6% p.a. following the decision rendered in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, .
In the light of above divergent arguments, now the point for determination is:
Whether the award of the Tribunal is legally and factually sustainable?
POINT: Disability of appellant is concerned, a perusal of the evidence of P.W. 2 - Dr. S. Ramesh Chandra, Professor, Orthopedic Surgeon, G.G.H., Kakinada, shows that the claimant suffered fracture to his left femur in the resultant accident, for which he was treated in Government General Hospital, Kakinada, by nailing through surgery. P.W. 2 further deposed that the petitioner is having 10% disability. In the cross-examination, he stated that by physiotherapy, the disability will disappear. He also stated that the claimant can attend all his normal works but in case of prolonged labour work, he would have some difficulty. So, the evidence of P.W. 2 shows that the claimant suffered partial and temporary disability. The claimant is a coolie. Hence, his disability, though a temporary one, will have adverse impact on his income. Therefore, he deserves compensation for his disability.
Perusal of the award would show that the Tribunal did not grant compensation for the disability though it granted compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, extra nourishment and transport charges and loss of past earnings. Thus, having regard to the nature of disability and its impact on his future earnings, I am of the view that he deserves a reasonable compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for disability and consequent loss of future earnings. The Tribunal already granted interest at 7.5% p.a. and I see no reason to reduce the same. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and compensation granted to appellant-claimant is enhanced by Rs. 25,000/- with proportionate costs and simple interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of O.P. till the date of realization. Respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount within one month from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.