HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.159 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel Sri G.L.Narasimha Rao for the appellant/claimant and Sri. Ramachandra Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent no.2.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/ claimant dissatisfied with the award passed by the VIII Additional District & sessions Judge at Nizamabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in O.P.No.1203 of 2010, dated 30.07.2014 and thereby seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
4. On 11.06.2010 at about 02.20 pm, the appellant-K.Rama Chandra Murthy was proceeding on his bullet motorcycle bearing registration No.AIH-5206 to Malakpet Trafffic Police Station for attending his duty, while he reached near Konark Diagnostic Centre, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad, a School Bus bearing registration No.AP-29-V-2910 dashed the said motorcycle from behind at high speed in rash and negligent manner and due to which, the received sustained grievous injuries and multiple LNA,J MACMA No.159 of 2015 2 fractures and the appellant's bike was also badly damaged and appellant was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad for treatment. The Police, Malakpet P.S., registered a case in Crime No.222/2010 under Sections 337 against the driver of the offending vehicle and filed charge sheet.
5. The claimant, i.e., appellant has filed claim petition against owner of the vehicle and insurance company under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of deposit.
6. The appellant/claimant was aged about 44 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and working as Traffic Police constable and earning income of Rs. 24,588/- per month. Due to multiple injuries, he is unable to walk properly and unable to perform his duty properly and he may lose increments and promotional opportunities.
7. The Respondent No.1-owner of offending vehicle remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying the allegations in the claim petition and contended that LNA,J MACMA No.159 of 2015 3 the driver of the School Bus was not having valid driving license and further, the insured and insurer of School Bus were necessary parties and that the compensation claimed by the claimant is highly exorbitant and excessive and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:
i) Whether the accident that had occurred on 11.06.2010 at about 14.20 hours near Konark Diagnostic Center, Gaddiannaram, Malakpet was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the school bus bearing registration NO.AP-29-V-2910, whether it had resulted in the injuries to the petitioner Sri K.Ramachandra Murthy, S/o: Late.KVG Subramanyam?
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
iii) To what relief ?
9. In order to substantiate the case, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of the claimant. To disprove the claim of the appellant, the 2nd respondent- insurance company did not examine any witness, but copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.
LNA,J MACMA No.159 of 2015 4
10. The Tribunal after considering the evidence placed on record, came to a conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of School Bus bearing registration No.AP-29-V- 2910 and awarded compensation of Rs.46,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of depositing of amount. The owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance company i.e., respondent Nos.1 & 2 were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.
11. During the course of hearing of appeal, learned counsel for appellant contended that the Tribunal did not award proper and just compensation and erred in ignoring the medical bills Exs.A6 and A7 and also failed to consider and award the amount for 75 days, during which period the appellant was sick. He also contended that injuries sustained by the appellant are grievous in nature and therefore, the Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount for the injuries sustained by the appellant.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2-insurance company would contend that the Tribunal awarded proper and just compensation on due consideration of the material and evidence LNA,J MACMA No.159 of 2015 5 placed before the Tribunal and there are no merits in the appeal filed by the appellant and thus, appeal is liable to be dismissed.
13. With regard to compensation, the Tribunal on due consideration of the documents placed before the Tribunal i.e., Ex.A3-copy of MLC, Ex.A4-discharge summary, Ex.A6-bunch of medical bills and Ex.A7-Certificate issued by the Station House Officer, Traffic to the effect that appellant had reported sick for 75 days, had came to conclusion that Exs.A6 and A7 cannot be taken into consideration. The Tribunal had recorded its reasons for non- consideration of Exs.A6 and A7 as under:
"Ex.A3 which is a certified copy of the MLC issued by Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad shows that the petitioner had sustained poly trauma in the said accident, the same being simple in nature. Ex.A7 is a certificate dated 13.12.2013 issued by the Station House Officer, Traffic P.S., Malakpet, Hyderabad to the effect that the petitioner had reported sick for 75 days i.e., from 11.06.2010 to 24.08.2010. Ex.A6 which comprises a bunch of medical bills shows that petitioner had incurred an expenditure of Rs.10,643/- for his treatment. Ex.A5 which is the pay slip of the petitioner pertaining to August, 2010 shows that the petitioner who works as a Police Constable had a gross salary of Rs.24,588/-. However, there is no evidence that the petitioner who is a government servant has suffered any loss of income during the period he was forced to take rest. Further, Ex.A6 medical bills have not been LNA,J MACMA No.159 of 2015 6 authenticated by P.W.2. There is no evidence that these bills which pertain to NIMS, Apollo Hospitals, etc relate to the treatment taken by the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. As such, Exs.A6 and A7 cannot be taken into consideration."
14. In the light of the observations recorded by the Tribunal and in the absence of any material evidencing loss of salary for 75 days and also any evidence to substantiate the claim of appellant that bunch of medical bills, which are marked as Ex.A6, relates to treatment taken by the appellant, this court is of the considered view that appeal is devoid of merits and no grounds are made out warranting interference by this Court with the award passed by the Tribunal.
15. Therefore, the Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
16. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
[[ ____________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 29.09.2023 Ktm/kkm LNA,J MACMA No.159 of 2015 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.NO.159 OF 2015 Date: 29.09.2023 Ktm/kkm