Mohammad Annas vs G.Nageshwar Rao And Anr

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2430 Tel
Judgement Date : 15 September, 2023

Telangana High Court
Mohammad Annas vs G.Nageshwar Rao And Anr on 15 September, 2023
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.2827 OF 2007

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Injured, questioning the order and decree, dated 07.03.2007 passed in O.P.No.143 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, MACT-Cum-Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda (for short, the Tribunal).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the sustained injuries by him in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 16.02.2005 the petitioner was proceeding towards Hyderabad from Choutuppal on his motor cycle bearing No.AP-11-N-6922 on the extreme left side of the road and when he reached Pokarna Factory, outskirts of Tupranpet Village one Ambassador Car bearing No.AP-04-9329 came from Hyderabad side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came on wrong side and dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner fell from the motorbike and received fracture to his right left and right hand and received grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, he 2 NBK, J MACMA_2827_2007 was taken to Kamineni Hospital, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad and there he was operated and plating was done to his right hand, skin grafting was also done to his right leg and rods were inserted. The Police, Choutappal had registered a case in Cr.No.30 of 2005 under Section 338 of IPC. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy aged about 26 years and working as lecturer in Brilliant Commerce Coaching Centre, Chanchalgude, Hyderabad and he is also regular teacher of 786 Convent High School, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad and used to get Rs.8,000/- per month on an average. Therefore, he laid the claim against the respondents.

4. Before the Tribunal, first respondent remained exparte and 2nd respondent filed written statement and denied the material averments made in the petition.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed before the Tribunal:-

1) Whether the petitioner received injuries in the road accident? If so, whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.AP-04-9329, by its driver?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
3) To what relief?
3
NBK, J MACMA_2827_2007
6. During trial, on behalf of the claimant, PW-1 and PW-2 are examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B-1 Copy of Policy is marked.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,94,746/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, i.e., Rs.99,745.67/- towards medical expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards two grievous injuries, Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement of the same.

8. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

9. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Court below erred in awarding the lumsump amount towards permanent disability and compensation towards pain and suffering is very meager for the injuries received in the accident.

4

NBK, J MACMA_2827_2007

10. By taking into account the Salary Certificates issued under Ex.A-9 and Ex.P-10, it is clear that the deceased is stated to be working as teacher, as such I am inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. The appellant filed Ex.A.11, disability certificate, which shows the disability of the appellant at 40%. The appellant examined P.W.2, the doctor who treated the appellant, who admitted to have filed Ex.A.11 and deposed about the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant. Therefore, I am inclined to take the disability of the appellant at 40%.

11. As the appellant was aged about 26 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier is '17'. Hence, the compensation under the head 'loss of income' comes to Rs.2,44,800/- {Rs.1200/- X 12 X 17}. Due to the two fracture injuries, the appellant might have lost earnings for a period of at least three months. Hence, an amount of Rs.9,000/- (Rs.3,000/- X 3 months) is granted towards loss of earnings. In the facts of the present case, the appellant is granted an amount of Rs.99,745/- towards medical bills, which warrants no interference and since the tribunal had not awarded any compensation under the head of extra-nourishment, keeping in 5 NBK, J MACMA_2827_2007 view the injuries sustained by claimant, Rs.25,000/- can be awarded towards extra nourishment.

12. Further, a perusal of the record, it is seen that no amount was awarded towards future medical expenditure and it is pertinent to note that the tribunal erred in not granting sufficient amount towards pain and suffering. Keeping in view the nature of fracture injuries sustained by the claimant and while considering the evidence of PW-2, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is granted towards future medical expenditure such as removal of implants etc. Further, a compensation of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs.4,68,545/- (Rs.2,44,800/- + Rs.9,000/- + Rs.99,745/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.40,000/-).

13. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,94,746/- to Rs.4,68,545/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. As the appellant claimed only Rs.2,50,000/-, he is directed to deposit deficit Court fee before the Tribunal.

6

NBK, J MACMA_2827_2007 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

____________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 15.09.2023 VRKS 7 NBK, J MACMA_2827_2007 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A.No.2827 OF 2007 15.09.2023 VRKS