Telangana High Court
Nevuri Sai Charan vs Dr.Kalyan And Another on 10 April, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.No.2803 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant- claimant aggrieved and dissatisfied by the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.923 of 2011, dated 13.03.2017 and thereby, seeking for enhancement of compensation.
3. The appellant herein is the petitioner, respondent no.1 herein is the owner of the crime vehicle and respondent no.2 herein is the insurance company before the Tribunal. For LNA, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2803 of 2017 2 convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under:
4.1. On 24.08.2011 at about 2.00 p.m, the petitioner along with his mother was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-28-AZ-7752 from Balajinagar to Lalgadi Malakpet Village and when they reached near Sports School Thumkunta Village, on Rajiv Rahadari, one Ford Car bearing registration No.AP-10-AX-4445 (hereinafter referred to as crime vehicle), driven by its driver, in rash and negligent manner from opposite direction dashed against his bike. As a result, the petitioner and his mother fell down from the bike and sustained injuries. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Area Hospital and later Gandhi Hospital. For better treatment, he was shifted to Sunshine Hospital, Secunderabad, where he was admitted as in-patient on 25.08.2011 and was operated three times and nails were inserted. It was noticed by the Doctors that petitioner received perineal debridement, LNA, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2803 of 2017 3 Cystoscopy, Tocar SPC and he is on pelvic binder and skin traction to right lower limb; that due to fracture and injuries, the claimant had incurred about Rs.3,50,000/- towards medical expenses in the said hospital, further he may require future medical expenses for removal of nails etc. The Police, P.S.Shamirpet of Cyberabad registered a case vide Crime No.222/2011 under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of crime vehicle.
4.2. The petitioner/injured filed claim petition against the respondents 1 and 2 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest from the date of the petition till the date of realization.
4.3. It is contended that petitioner was aged about 20 years, hale and healthy by the time of the accident, and was working as photographer and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month.
However, due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner/ injured in the road accident, his life has become miserable and LNA, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2803 of 2017 4 he is totally disabled; that due to fracture injuries, petitioner spent Rs.2,50,000/- for medical expenses.
5. The respondent no.1-owner of the crime vehicle filed counter denying the contents of the petitioner inter alia contending that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle and that the crime vehicle is insured with the respondent no.2-insurance company. Therefore, it is contended that the driver of the crime vehicle is not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. The respondent no.2-insurance company filed counter denying the manner of the accident as narrated by the petitioner and further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving licence and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
7. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:
LNA, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2803 of 2017 5 "1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Ford car bearing No.AP-
10-AX-4445?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, from whom and what just amount?
3. To what relief?"
8. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A1 to A15 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined, however, Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.B1.
9. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the material and evidence placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner, payable by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally with costs and interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization.
LNA, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2803 of 2017 6
10. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant/injured contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the injured at Rs.10,000/- per month or at least Rs.6,000/- in accordance with the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court; that the Tribunal failed to consider the future prospects of the petitioner/injured by considering the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court i.e., Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others 1; Syed Sadiq vs. United India Insurance Company2; and Munna Lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others3; that the Tribunal ought to have considered the functional disability at 100% due to physical disability at 30% as per medical evidence; that Tribunal ought to have granted more compensation under the head pain and suffering, however, the Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/-, which is meager. He further submitted the Tribunal ought to have taken the loss of income for a period of at least 6 months during the period of treatment; that Tribunal erred in awarding interest only at 6% 1 (2013) 9 SCC 54 2 AIR 2014 SC 1052 3 (2015) 3 ACJ 1985 LNA, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2803 of 2017 7 instead of 12% and finally, prayed to enhance the compensation.
11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal, on due consideration of the material and evidence on record, has rightly awarded the compensation and the same does not require any enhancement and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
12. Insofar as the contention of learned counsel for appellant/injured with regard to the income of the petitioner, through the petitioner failed to show that he was a photographer and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.5,000/-
without there being any proof, which in considered opinion of this Court is just and reasonable considering the age and avocation of the petitioner.
13. Perusal of the record would show that the petitioner sustained the injuries viz., Shaft fracture right femur, Public symposia diastasis, Urethral rupture and Lacerated wound LNA, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2803 of 2017 8 over perianal region, which are grievous in nature, and was diagnosed for the above injuries; and underwent surgery and nails were inserted and the petitioner requires two surgeries for removal of implants, which requires at least Rs.25,000/-, in addition to Rs.25,000/- for room rent and other charges. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. In view of the above, in considered opinion of this Court the amount granted by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is meager and therefore, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head pain and suffering and the same needs to be modified to the above extent.
14. Insofar as quantum of compensation towards loss of income, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Perusal of the evidence and material placed on record would show that the alleged accident was occurred on 24.08.2011, that immediately he was admitted in hospital as in-patient 25.08.2011 and was operated for three times and nails were inserted; that on 16.09.2011, 'interlocking nail of right femur LNA, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2803 of 2017 9 was done on the advice of Plastic Surgeon Urologist. Further, according to the evidence of P.W.6-Dr.S.Vidyasagar, petitioner sustained distraction injuries of posterior urethane, which was grievous in nature and they have done Anastigmatic Urethroplasty on 04.04.2012.
15. In view of the above, the petitioner lost earnings income at least for ten months from the date of accident. In the light of the continuous treatment and also fact that the operation conducted after a period of ten months from the date of accident, this Court is inclined to grant a sum Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income of the claimant for period of ten months considering the monthly income of Rs.5,000/- as fixed by the Tribunal and the same need to be modified to the above extent.
16. Insofar as the quantum of interest awarded, the Tribunal has granted interest @ 6% per annum. As per the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts, it is just and appropriate to grant interest @ 7.5% per annum and same need to be modified to the said extent.
LNA, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2803 of 2017 10
17. Further, considering the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads.
Conclusion:
18. In view of the above discussion, material and evidence placed on record, the compensation amount is recalculated as under:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Loss of Income Rs.50,000/- (Rs.5,000/- per
month for a period of ten
months)
2 Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
3 Injuries Rs.1,00,000/-
4 Medical expenses Rs.2,20,000/-
5 Future medical expenses Rs. 50,000/-
6 Transportation Charges Rs. 10,000/-
7 Extra nourishment Rs. 20,000/-
8 Attendant charges Rs. 10,000/-
9 Total compensation amount: Rs.5,60,000/-
19. In the result, this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.4,80,000/- to Rs.5,60,000/-. The said compensation LNA, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2803 of 2017 11 amount shall also carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition made before the Tribunal till the date of the actual payment. Both the respondents herein are directed to ensure that the entire amount of compensation is deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly adjusting the amount, if any, already paid by them. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 10.04.2024 Dua/kkm