NAGABATHULA HARA GOPAL Vs. MALLURI VENKATA RAMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the award dated 28.08.2008 in M.V.O.P.No.297 of 2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum -I Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry (for short "the Tribunal"), the claimants preferred the instant M.A.C.M.A on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.

(2.) THE claimant Nos.2 to 4 before the Tribunal are appellants herein and respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the Tribunal are respondents herein.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for appellant challenged the quantum of compensation as low and inadequate on two main grounds. a) Firstly, he argued that the Tribunal grossly erred in granting only Rs.14,937/ - towards medical expenditure, though the claimants produced medical bills for Rs.1,71,391.58 and PW.2 - Dr.N.Satyanarayana deposed about them. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the Tribunal erred in accepting medical bills for Rs.14,937/ - only and discarding the remaining medical bills for Rs.1,56,454/ - on the ground that the first set of medical bills were computerized medical bills whereas second set of medical bills were manual bills and could be manipulated. He argued that there was no basis for Tribunal to come to such conclusion. He argued that in the resultant accident, the 1st claimant suffered fracture to his left leg and ankle and his kidneys were also damaged, for which he was treated in Raju Neuro and Multi Specialty Hospital, Rajahmundry and underwent surgery to his left leg. Further, for his damaged kidneys, the 1st claimant underwent treatment through PW.2 - Nephrologist, who performed dialysis to the 1st claimant and even at the time of filing O.P also he was undergoing treatment for his kidneys problem. Learned counsel argued that the Tribunal having accepted the medical evidence, ought to have granted the medical expenditure covered by Ex.A.5 - medical bills but however the Tribunal rejected most of the medical bills under an erroneous observation that those bills were manual bills and could be fabricated. He thus submitted that the entire medical expenditure covered by Ex.A.5 - medical bills may be granted. b) Secondly, learned counsel argued that the Tribunal granted a low rate of interest at 6% per annum, thought the Tribunals are now awarding 7.5% to 9% of interest basing on the rate of interest admitted by the nationalized banks. He thus prayed for enhancement of compensation by allowing the appeal.