Telangana High Court
Beerelli Mallikarjuna Rao , ... vs The Chiet Secretary, Secretariat, ... on 19 April, 2024
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1714 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court at Hyderabad in O.P. No. 47 of 2012, dated 02.03.2016, the claim petitioner in the above MVOP preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the learned Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 13.09.2011. As per the claim petitioner, he was a businessman by profession. On 13.09.2011 at about 16:30 PM while the petitioner was returning to his house via P.V Ghat, Necklace road on his motor cycle bearing No. AP 09 BS 5751, a police jeep/van bearing No. AP.09.6653 coming from opposite direction being driven by its driver in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle of petitioner.
2 MGP,J Macma_1714_2017 As a result, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta, Hyderabad and later shifted to Udai Clinic, Chappal Road for further treatment and he was admitted as inpatient vide IP No. PRI-11-3548 for a period of 14 days. On information Police, Ramgopalpet Police Station of Hyderabad, registered a case in Crime No.206 of 2011 for the offence under Section 337 IPC against the driver of said police jeep/van bearing No. AP.09.6653. The claimant was hale and healthy and used to earn not less than a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month and was the sole earning member of the family. In the said accident the petitioner sustained fracture of right knee patella, fracture of lateral and medial condyl of femur, complete rupture of patella ligament with dislocation of right knee and other grievous multiple injuries all over his body. He also underwent an operation for Debridement GRIF Femur with screws TBW patella right repair patella ligament and gastroneimus flat SSG on 15.09.2011 and spent a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the same. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner suffered great pain, discomfort and mental agony and 100% loss of income and hence, filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from all the respondents jointly and severally.
3 MGP,J Macma_1714_2017
4. Respondent No.2 filed counter, which was adopted by Respondent No.1. They denied all the averments made in the claim petition including, the manner of accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of jeep/van, age, occupation and income of the petitioner, nature of injuries sustained to him, the amount incurred by him for medical treatment and percentage of disability. It is also contended that on the said date of accident the police vehicle bearing No. AP.09.6653 which was under the control of Intelligence Security Wing, Khairtabad was parked on the side of the necklace road without creating any obstruction to free flow of traffic as the vehicle was broke down due to lack of battery supply and become immobile. While so, the petitioner without observing the hazard parking lights dashed the parked vehicle and sustained injuries. On these grounds the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contended that they are not liable to pay any compensation and that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition with exemplary costs.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:-
4 MGP,J Macma_1714_2017
(i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident on 13.09.2011, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep/van bearing No. AP.09.6653?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, from whom?
(iii) To what relief
6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claim petitioner PWs 1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-19 and Ex. X-1. On behalf of respondents, RW-1 was examined and got marked Ex. B-1- Copy of insurance policy.
7. After considering the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.2,08,507/- as compensation with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, jointly and severally payable by all the respondents. Dissatisfied with the said compensation amount, the appellant/claim petitioner has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
8. Heard both sides and perused the record including the grounds of appeal.
9. The main contention of the appellant is that though he proved the case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence, the learned 5 MGP,J Macma_1714_2017 Tribunal without considering the same, has awarded meager amount towards compensation, hence, prayed to enhance the compensation amount by allowing the appeal. Per contra learned counsel for the insurance company argued that the learned Tribunal after considering all the aspects has rightly awarded reasonable compensation, for which interference of this Court is unwarranted and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. Now, the point that emerges for consideration is, Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal requires interference by this Court?
11. This Court has perused the evidence and documents filed on behalf of both sides. The appellant as PW-1 reiterated the contents of his claim application and deposed about the manner of accident and injuries sustained by him. In order to prove the injuries he got examined PW-2/doctor, who deposed that the claimant was admitted in their hospital on 13.09.2011 at around 7:15 P.M with history of R.T.A with open fracture and dislocation of the right knee. He further deposed that the fractures were operated and dislocation of the knee was reduced on same night on 13.09.2011. The 2nd surgery of repair of patella and plastic surgery to cover this skin defect in front of this 6 MGP,J Macma_1714_2017 knee with muscle flap ad skin grafting was done on 15.09.2011. PW1 remained in the hospital until 26.09.2011 and he was discharged with instructions to come back for follow-up treatments. The fractures were fixed with wire and screws. The injuries are grievous in nature. Exhibits A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-14, A-15, A-16, A-17, were issued by the hospital of PW2. As per Ex.A-16, disability is 50% to 60%. The removal of implants cost around Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. PW2 further deposed that the claimant can bend his knee only to an extent of 15 degree instead of 130 degrees and he may need joint replacement eventually after 5 to 10 years. The knee implantation which is inserted presently will have no effect in future. In Ex.A-7 and A-8 are corrected version carried out by his assistant doctor by name Dr. Shankar Shetty who assisted him in drawing conclusion that the disability is partial and permanent in nature and admitted the contents of Exs. A-6 to A-9 and A-11 to A-17.
12. Further, the appellant examined PW-3, who is the billing manager of the hospital. He corroborated the evidence of PW-1 regarding the issuance of the bills under Exs.A-9 and A-10. PW3 admitted that the claimant admitted in their hospital with history of 7 MGP,J Macma_1714_2017 Road Traffic Accident (RTA) on 13.09.2011 as an in-patient vide I.P.No. PRI 11-3548. The patient incurred bill vide I.P.No. PRI 11- 3548 dated 26.09.2011 for Rs.1,35,490/-, inpatient bill No.5411 dated 26.09.2011 for Rs.5,925/-Pharmacy bill of Rs.27,092/-. The total amount of Rs.1,68,507/-, the above amount paid by the patient by way of cash only and Exs. A-9 and Ex-A-10, which are discharge bill and bunch of medical bills respectively were issued by Udai Omini (Udai Clinic) hospital and signed by the staff of his hospital. It was further stated that Exs.A-9 and A-10 were not covered by any government reimbursement scheme and any other schemes. Though, P.W-1 to P.W-3 are cross examined at length, nothing worth was elucidated to disbelieve their evidence.
13. With regard to the manner in which the accident took place, a perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal has framed issue No.1 as to whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of crime vehicle, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A-1, FIR and Ex.A-3, charge sheet, has categorically observed that the accident occurred due to 8 MGP,J Macma_1714_2017 the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and has answered the issue in favour of the claimant and against the respondent. Therefore, this court do not see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal to the extent that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver.
14. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant was admitted as inpatient on 13.09.2011, he underwent operation for debridement GRIF femur with screws TBW patella right repair patella ligament and gastroneimus flat SSG on 15.09.2011 and was discharged on 26.09.2011 as per Ex. A-7 discharge summary and as per Ex. A-12 the appellant took follow up treatment of physiotherapy. Exs.A-6 to A-11, Injury Certificate and other medical bills, discloses that the claimant suffered fracture of right knee patella and lateral, medial condyl of femur complete rupture of ligament and dislocation of right knee and other grievous injuries. Exs.A-6 to A-11 is substantiated with the evidence of the doctor, P.W.2 who also admitted the fracture injuries and operation of the same. Considering the said medical evidence, though the learned Tribunal had awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain, suffering and 9 MGP,J Macma_1714_2017 trauma and Rs.25,000/- towards injury, Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, which appears to be low. Hence, considering all the aspect, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation amount on various head as follows:
15. Since the petitioner has sustained fracture injuries apart from dislocation of knee, those injuries are considered as grievous injuries more particularly, in view of oral evidence of PW2 coupled with injury certificate issued by PW2. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.50,000/- towards injuries sustained by him. As most of the injuries sustained by the petitioner were grievous in nature and as the petitioner underwent surgery more than once, the petitioner might have sustained any amount of pain and sufferance during the bedridden period, hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.30,000/-
under the head of pain and suffering. As the petitioner has sustained fracture injuries, he took treatment in two hospitals and also underwent surgery more than once, he would have incurred considerable amount towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.25,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges.
10 MGP,J Macma_1714_2017
16. Now coming to the loss of income, as can be seen from the impugned order, there is no whisper about the loss of income sustained by the petitioner. Though the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of partial earnings, learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the said head. Admittedly the claimant has sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in the hospital and undergone treatment for more than two weeks and after discharge from the hospital he might have taken considerable time for recovery. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner underwent surgery more than once. Therefore during the period from the date of accident till he recovered from the injuries, the petitioner failed to carry out his regular job of running general provisional store and has suffered loss of income. Thus, considering the above facts and circumstances, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is being awarded for partial loss of earnings. However, this Court is not inclined to modify the amount of Rs.1,68,507/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of medical bills as the same was awarded in consonance with the medical bills submitted by the petitioner. Even though the claimant claimed an amount of Rs.4,88,000/- towards permanent disability, no substantial evidence is placed by the petitioner to that effect. Moreover, the person, who has issued 11 MGP,J Macma_1714_2017 disability certificate admitted that the said certificate was issued for the purpose of pension benefits and other government benefits and it is not applicable to MLC cases. Hence, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the said claim of the petitioner for permanent disability.
17. Accordingly, the Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal from Rs.2,08,507/- to Rs.2,98,507/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
18. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 19.04.2024 AS