Telangana High Court
Shaik Ghouse, Nizamabad vs Shaik Jabbar, Nizamabad And Another on 13 February, 2024
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1946 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the injured claimant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2007 passed in O.P. No.25 of 2003 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad, seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. He stated that he was a resident of Gowtham Nagar, Nizamabad Town, aged 24 years, he was doing business and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by the date of the accident. On 03.08.2002 at about 7.00 AM, while he along with others was travelling in a Jeep bearing No.AP 25U 1336 from Bhainsa to Nizamabad and when reached Mittapoor village shivar, the driver of the jeep drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, lost control over the vehicle, due to which the jeep turned turtle and the claimant, sustained fractures and other injuries. A case in Crime No.104 of 2002 under Section 337 IPC was registered by the 2 Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1946 of 2008 Navipet Police against the driver of the jeep bearing No. AP 25U 1336. The claimant claimed compensation from the respondents 1 and 2 - the owner and insurer of the said jeep.
3. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte.
4. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter and called for strict proof of the petition averments.
5. The Tribunal, after framing the issues, conducted enquiry. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and got examined the Orthopedic Surgeon, who treated him, as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3 in support of his contention. The respondent No.2 failed to adduce any oral evidence, but a copy of the policy was marked as Ex.B1.
6. The Tribunal, on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep bearing No. AP 25U 1336 and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.
7. With regard to the quantum of compensation, as no X- rays were filed, the Tribunal considered the injuries sustained by the 3 Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1946 of 2008 claimant as simple injuries and awarded an amount of Rs.9,000/- towards the injuries sustained by the claimant, Rs.1,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.1,000/- towards treatment expenses, Rs.500/- towards transportation and Rs.500/- towards extra nourishment. Thus, in all, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.12,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
8. Aggrieved by the said award of the Tribunal, the claimant preferred this appeal contending that the enquiry before the Tribunal was summary in nature, hence, strict proof of evidence was not required. The Tribunal failed to award compensation under all the heads and prayed to modify the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2007.
9. Heard Sri K. Sarala Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and Sri R. Sheetal Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance company.
10. Perused the record. The record would disclose that the claimant examined himself as PW.1. He stated that immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the hospital of Dr.Narsing Rao, Nizamabad and was treated as inpatient for two days by applying POP to his left hand and leg injury. Thereafter, he took treatment with Dr. 4 Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1946 of 2008 Bandewar of Nanded and incurred an expenditure of Rs.60,000/- to 70,000/-. Prior to the accident he was doing general business and was earning Rs.3,000/- to Rs.3,500/- per month. On account of the injuries, he incurred disability and was not able to do any business and his earnings were affected. He got examined the consultant Orthopedic Surgeon Dr. T. Narsing Rao, who treated him at Nizamabd as PW.2.
11. PW.2 stated that the claimant came to his hospital with injuries on 03.08.2002. On examination, he found that the claimant sustained fracture of both bones of left forearm, fracture of clavicle of the left ankle, fracture of left clavicle. The injuries were grievous in nature. He advised X-rays for the said injuries.
12. Thus, as per the evidence of PW.2, the claimant sustained three fracture injuries, one-fracture of both bones of left forearm, fracture of left ankle and fracture of left clavicle. The wound certificate, marked under Ex.A3 would disclose the above injuries and the nature of injuries were mentioned as grievous.
13. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 was silent about any permanent disability sustained by the claimant due to the above injuries. As such, the multiplier method is not applicable and loss of 5 Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1946 of 2008 future income need not be taken. No amount is awarded under the head 'permanent disability'. But, considering the evidence of PW.2, which was corroborated by Ex.A3, the Tribunal ought to have awarded amount towards pain and suffering and under other heads. As the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.9,000/- towards injuries considering them as simple in nature, the same needs to be enhanced. Considering that the claimant sustained three fracture injuries, it is considered appropriate to award an amount of Rs.60,000/- under this head. The claimant failed to file any medical bills, but, however, as he might have incurred some amount towards his treatment, it is considered fit to award an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards his medical expenses (current and future).
14. The claimant contended that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. But, in the absence of any evidence, the same can be considered as Rs.4,500/- per month as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1 . Considering the three fracture injuries sustained by him, the loss of income can be calculated for a period of six months. As such the claimant is entitled to an 1 (2011) 13 SCC 236 6 Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1946 of 2008 amount of Rs.27,000/- (Rs.4,500/- x 6) towards loss of income during the period of his treatment. As no amount was awarded towards attendant charges and some of his family members might have attended him leaving their work, it is considered fit to award an amount of Rs.5,000/- under this head. The amounts awarded towards transportation and extra nourishment at Rs.500/- each were very meager. Hence, it is considered fit to enhance the same to Rs.2,000/- each under these heads. As such, the compensation entitled by the claimant under various heads is considered as follows:
Pain and suffering :Rs.60,000/-
Medical expenses
(current and future) :Rs.15,000/-
Loss of income :Rs.27,000/-
Attendant charges :Rs. 5,000/-
Transportation :Rs. 2,000/-
Extra nourishment :Rs. 2,000/-
-----------------
Total : Rs.1,11,000/-
------------------
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.12,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.1,11,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount. The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is directed to 7 Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1946 of 2008 deposit the said amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount deposited, if any. On such deposit, the appellant - claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J February 13, 2024.
KTL