AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Both these Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are being disposed of by way of this common judgment as both these appeals are directed against the award dt.21.11.2014 in M.V.O.P No.472 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).
In M.A.C.M.A No.1444 of 2016 the Appellant/Claimant had challenged the award dt.21.11.2014 in M.V.O.P No.472 of 2012 with regard to the quantum of compensation and prayed to enhance the same and in M.A.C.M.A No.703 OF 2016, the Respondent/RTC had challenged the award dt.21.11.2014 in M.V.O.P No.472 of 2012 by contending that the Tribunal failed to consider the contributory negligence, leading to the accident; and prayed to the set-aside the same.
For the sake of convenience, the facts in M.A.C.M.A No.1444 of 2016 are discussed hereunder and the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
Brief facts of the case are that on 12.11.2011 at about 2.30 p.m., the petitioner along with her son was proceeding in a car bearing No.AP-29AP-5509 from Hyderabad to Nizamabad and when they reached Chegunta bypass road on NH-44, the RTC bus bearing No. AP-29Z-0219 came from Nizamabad side and while overtaking another vehicle, came in wrong side in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the car, as a result, the petitioner received grievous injuries and she was immediately shifted to Apollo Hospitals. On a complaint, the police Chegunta registered a case in Cr.No.162 of 2011 under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of the bus. The petitioner was hale and healthy and aged about 34 years prior to the accident and she was a director at M/s. Guru Gowri Krupa Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and getting a monthly salary of Rs.1 Lakh apart from benefits and in spite of taking treatment, she is not cured completely and suffers from limping while walking and also, she is unable to sit and squat properly and thereby suffering from disability and hence lost income. As such, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.30 Lakhs under different heads.
On behalf of the petitioner, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exhibits Ex.A1 to A16 were marked. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced by the respondents.
Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues and allowed the claim petition in part granting a sum of Rs.11,74,247/-. Against the same, the present appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation.
Heard both sides. Perused the record.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre amount as compensation and prayed to allow the appeal. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that the Tribunal failed to consider that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car in which the petitioner was travelling. However, a careful perusal of the observations of the Tribunal would reveal that the respondents failed to adduce any evidence in proof of their contentions and the Tribunal was justified in holding that the driver of the bus of the respondents is liable for the accident.
However, a perusal of the impugned award goes to show that the Tribunal erred in not awarding just compensation to the petitioner despite the petitioner adduced sufficient evidence. Hence, this Court is inclined to enhance the awarded amount in certain heads. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges which is meagre. Accordingly, it is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment, the same is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. The Tribunal ignored the aspect of pain and suffering. Due to the accident, there is no doubt that the petitioner underwent pain and suffering, but the Tribunal failed to award compensation under this head. As such, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering.
The petitioner also claimed attendant charges of Rs.50,000/- but the Tribunal did not consider the same. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges. The petitioner was awarded future medical expenses at Rs.65,000/-. The counsel appearing for the respondents stated that the future medical expenses can be reimbursed by the medical Insurance Company. However, this Court finds that the total amount cannot be reimbursed and as such, this court is inclined to enhance the amount from Rs.65,000 to Rs.85,000/-. Rest of the compensation is rightly awarded by the Tribunal. The interest at 7.5% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal needs no interference.
Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to the following :
Amount awarded by the
Tribunal
Enhancement made by the
High Court
Transport charges
2,000/-
5,000/-
5,000/-
Extra nourishment
2,000/-
3,40,247/-
Medical Expenses
3,40,247/-
85,000/-
6,00,000/-
Future medical expenditure
65,000/-
Loss of earning
6,00,000/-
during treatment
period
Future loss of earning
1,50,000/-
1,50,000/-
Medical Tests
15,000/-
15,000/-
Pain and suffering
--
50,000/-
Attendant charges
--
10,000/-
Rs.11,74,247/-
Rs.12,60,247/-
Thus, the petitioner is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.12,60,247/- as against the awarded amount of Rs.11,74,247/-.
Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A No. 1444 of 2016 is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.11,74,247/- to Rs.12,60,247/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh, Sixty Thousand, Two hundred and forty seven only) along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Rest of the operative portion of the order of the Tribunal holds good. There shall be no order as to costs.
In view of the findings in M.A.C.M.A No. 1444 of 2016, this M.A.C.M.A No. 703 of 2016 is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A No. 703 of 2016 dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.