SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE Vs. D RAMI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the appellants, who are respondents in MATOP No.482 of 1988, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Additional District Judge, Khammam, challenging the order dt.30-3-1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khammam, awarding a total compensation of Rs..5,30,856 in favour of the respondent herein (claim petitioner) together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation and also awarding proportionate costs of Rs.14,430/-.

(2.) Before entering into a debate on the controversy with regard to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimant, it is necessary to refer to the facts of the case to high light the issue on hand. On 30-3-1988 the claim-petitioner, in the course of his wholesale and retail business in stainless steel articles, had gone to Chintoor and was standing on the extreme left side of the road at the bus stop at about 10-30 a.m. At that time a van, driven by respondent No.3 (appellant No.3 herein), came in a very rash and negligent manner and bit the claim petitioner and four others as a result of which the petitioner sustained injury to his vertibral wedge and the same was compressed and the fell on the ground immediately after the accident, the parents of the petitioner were informed and the injured-petitioner was admitted in Bhadrachalam hospital and from there he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital where he was treated as an inpatient from 1-4-1988 to 6-5-1988, and was taken to the place of the petitioner, viz., Jonnada as his parents were informed that it is a difficult case and recovery is impossible. As a result of the injury, the petitioner became para-paralysis and urinating and stools is a major problem as there is no sensation and the petitioner is bed-ridden for the rest of his life foregoing all the pleasures of his life and is put to untold physical and mental hardship.

(3.) The petitioner originally claimed a compensation of Rs.3,97,650/-. At one stage, the respondents remained ex parte and ex parte decree was passed. Subsequently, on a petition filed by the 2nd respondent, the ex parte decree was set aside and thereafter the 2nd respondent filed a counter. At that stage, the claim petitioner filed an application for amendment of the petition thereby enhancing the claim from Rs.3,97,650/- to Rs.6,97,650/- and it was allowed by the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed counter in the claims Tribunal, contending, inter-alia, that the compensation claimed is highly exaggerated.