(1.) The appellant herein is the petitioner in O.P. No.633 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), at Nizamabad. He preferred the present appeal assailing the award of the Tribunal, importantly on the ground that the Tribunal failed to award the medical expenditure as incurred by the appellant, which is to an extent of Rs. 23,920.00 on the ground that as per the provision of 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') only Rs. 15,000.00 can be awarded towards medical expenses. The appeal is also on the grounds that the Tribunal did not consider the fracture injuries and did not appreciate that huge expenditure would be incurred for the treatment of the same.
(2.) In the foremost, the observation of the Tribunal that under Sec. 163-A of the Act medical expenses only to an extent of L15,000.00 can be granted, can be met with, with the help of rulings furnished by the counsel for the appellant and the other rulings. The ruling in the case of Sapna Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited And Another 2008 (7) SCC 613, is to the effect that deviation from Second Schedule can be made in appropriate cases. The said aspect is dealt with under para 11 of the judgment, which runs as follows:
(3.) Ruling of the Honourable High Court of Karnataka reported in the case of Regional Manager New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Vijay Balshiram Walunj LAWS (Kar) - 2011-10-9 relied upon the first mentioned ruling in order to deviate from the Second Schedule of the Act. The ruling of Honourable High Court of Gujarath reported in the case of Javatiben Bhupsinhiji Vs. Narpatsinh Bhupsinhji, 2006 LSG 550, is also relied upon. Apart from the above rulings, the following rulings also can be taken support of with regard to the second schedule being applied to the cases beyond the income of Rs. 40,000.00. The decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121 : 2009 (2) TAC 677, explains the same in the following words: