Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs K. Rama Krishna Rao Major on 12 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY THE NINETH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
MACMA.NOs. 523 AND 686 OF 2008
Between: MACMA.No. 523 OF 2008
K. Ramakrishna Rao ... Appellant
V/s.
S.Ganapathi & Anr. ... Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant : Smt. B.Roja Ramani
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : None appeared
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Somanchi Venkateswarlu
SC for United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
Between: MACMA.No. 686 OF 2008
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
Secunderabad ... Appellant-Respondent No.2
V/s.
K.Ramakrishna Rao & Anr. ... Respondent No.2-Respondent No.1
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Somanchi Venkateswarlu
SC for United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : Smt.B.Roja Ramani for R-1
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : None appeared
The Court made the following : (Common Judgment follows next page)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
MACMA.NOs. 523 AND 686 OF 2008
COMMON JUDGMENT :
MACMA.No. 523 of 2008 is filed by the injured-claimant and MACMA.No. 686 of 2008 is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited against the award and decree dated 05-11-2007 passed in OP.No. 2486 of 2005 by the X-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. The appellant in MACMA.No. 523 of 2008 is the injured-claimant, Mr. K. Rama Krishna Rao, who was aged about 55 years on the date of accident. He received injuries in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 15-6-2005 at about 1730 hours due to involvement of a lorry bearing No. AP-10V-0513. The learned Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the above said lorry and held that the owner of the lorry and its insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, which finding having not been appealed against by the Insurance Company became final.
3. Both the appeals relate to quantum of compensation. The injured-claimant filed claim-petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000=00 against which an amount of Rs.1,99,911=00 was granted by the learned Claims Tribunal by its award dated 05-1-2007 together with costs and interest.
4. In MACMA.No. 523 of 2008 the appellant-claimant contends that the amount granted is not adequate and whereas the Insurance Company in MACMA.No. 686 of 2008 contends that the compensation amount granted by the Claims Tribunal being on higher side, the same is liable to be reduced.
5. Heard Smt. Roza Ramani, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant and Sri T.Mahender Rao, the learned standing counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company.
6. Perused the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal and the material available on record.
7. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the appellant-injured received four fracture injuries in the accident and accordingly granted an amount of 60,000=00 (i.e., Rs.15,000 x 4 = 60,000), which amount being reasonable need not be interfered with in this appeal. According to the appellant-injured, he was running plastic industry in the name and style M/s. Hyderabad Plastic Industry at Kukkatpally, Hyderabad and was earning Rs.12,500=00 per month. He substantiated his version by filing Income-tax returns and registration certificate issued by the Commercial Tax Department, which are marked as Exs.A-15 to A-18. Therefore, the fact that he was running the plastic industry cannot be disputed.
8. The learned Claims Tribunal considering the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-injured before it and basing on the medical bills awarded Rs.17,489=00 towards medical expenses. It was conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimant that in the course of arguments before the Claims Tribunal that though the medical bills are for an amount of Rs.43,314-00, the claimant claimed an amount of Rs.7,242-00 which the difference between the amount claimed and settled under the medical claim by the Insurance Company and also an amount of Rs.10,247-00 which is under Ex.A-7. Basing on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimant, the learned Claims Tribunal granted Rs.17,489/- but Ex.A-2 medical bills filed by the appellant-claimant reveal that he had spent Rs.43,314=00 towards medical expenses. But the learned Claims Tribunal basing on the above submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant before it awarded only Rs.17,489-00.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant relied upon a judgment in HELLEN C. REBELLO AND ORS V/s. MAHARASHTRA [1] STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER , wherein it has been laid down that "the amount received as reimbursement under medical claim policy for which the claimant had been paying premium cannot be deducted. Since the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory and the amount payable under the Life Insurance Policy is contractual".
10. In this case, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have granted the amount under Exs.A-7 and A-21 i.e., Rs.10,247=00 + Rs.43,314=00 = Rs.53,561=00 towards medical expenses. In this appeal, therefore, an amount of Rs.53,561=00 is granted towards medical expenses.
11. The learned Claims Tribunal recorded a specific finding that in the affidavit filed in the course of chief examination there is no mention about sustaining any permanent disability and whereas the theory of the appellant-injured sustaining permanent disability was developed in the course of evidence of doctor - PW-3. PW-3 orally assessed the disability at 15%. Having held so, the learned Claims Tribunal on its own arrived the disability sustained by the appellant-injured at 10% and computed compensation basing on multiplier method and awarded an amount of Rs.83,936=00 towards permanent disability. According to me, the approach adopted by the learned Claims Tribunal is not correct and the appellant-claimant is not entitled for any amount towards permanent disability. Since the appellant-claimant has not stated in his chief examination about permanent disability and no disability certificate is produced by him, in MACMA.No.523 of 2008, the appellant is not entitled for any amount towards permanent disability as he failed to prove the permanent disability. However, the learned Claims Tribunal considering the period of hospitalization of the appellant-claimant, awarded an amount of Rs.17,486-00 towards loss of past earnings which being reasonable and based on evidence adduced by the claimant-injured need not be interfered with. The learned Claims Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000=00 towards medical expenses and Rs.2,000=00 towards extra nourishment and these amounts are reasonable and need not be interfered with. The amount of Rs.1,000=00 granted towards transport charges also needs no interference. The learned Claims Tribunal considering the evidence of PW- 2 granted Rs.8000=00 towards damages for the Bajaj four strokes two wheeler and the said amount being based on evidence, requires no interference in this appeal. The learned Claims Tribunal, however, did not grant any amount towards pain and suffering. Therefore, an amount of Rs.15,000=00 can be granted towards pain and suffering. Thus, in all an amount of Rs.,1,34,647=00 is granted to the appellant-injured.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation granted by award dated 05-11-2007 passed in OP.No.2486 of 2005 is reduced from Rs.1,99,911=00 to Rs.1,34,647=00. Consequently, MACMA.No. 523 of 2008 filed by the appellant-claimant is dismissed. MACMA.686 of 2008 filed by the Insurance Company is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs in both the appeals.
_______________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 09-03-2012 IsL THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R . KANTHA RAO MACMA.NOs. 523 AND 686 OF 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT CIRCULATION No. 44 Date: 09-03-2012 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43 [1] ) 1999 ACJ-10