Telangana High Court
E.Bharath Kumar Reddy vs K.Gopi Singh And Anr on 21 February, 2024
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
M.A.C.M.A.No.2282 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the injured claimant aggrieved by the award and decree dated 01.09.2007 in O.P.No.720 of 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "The Tribunal") - cum - I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.21,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.1,50,000/- as claimed by him.
2. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident on 25.05.2005. As per the claimant, he was aged 21 years, he was a student of final year engineering in Sri Nandaram College of Engineering, Tirupathur, Vellore District, Tamilnadu and R/o.Kallepalli Village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. On 25.05.2005 at 01:30 PM, he boarded a jeep bearing No.AP-7-T-3995 at Jadcherla to go to his village Kallepalli and at about 02:00 PM, when the jeep was proceeding along National Highway No.7 in the limits of Rajapur at Kilometer Stone No.2/68, another jeep bearing No.AP-22-U-7569 driven by its driver with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from Shadnagar side and hit the jeep in which the petitioner was travelling. Due to which, the 2 Dr.GRR, J macma_2282_2008 petitioner and others sustained grievous injuries. The Police, Balanagar registered a case in Crime No.112 of 2005 under Section 338 of IPC against the driver of the jeep bearing No.AP-22-U-7569. After the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Shadnagar for treatment and subsequently he had taken treatment at Dhanvantari Hospital, Mahabubnagar. He stated that he sustained fracture of left humerus and fracture of pelvic bone. An operation was conducted on him on 27.05.2005. He was admitted as in-patient in Dhanvantari Hospital from 25.05.2005 to 06.06.2005 and thereafter had taken treatment as out-patient for three months. He sustained permanent disability. He was bed ridden for four months. His studies were affected and claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- from respondents 1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the jeep bearing No.AP-22-U-7569.
3. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.
4. The respondent No.2 filed counter. The respondent No.2 called for strict proof of the petition averments. He further contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep, in which the petitioner was traveling as a passenger, as such, the owner and insurer of the said jeep were also proper and necessary parties to the claim petition. He further contended that the compensation claimed was excessive, arbitrary and prayed to dismiss the petition against him.
3
Dr.GRR, J macma_2282_2008
5. Basing on the said pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues and conducted enquiry.
6. The petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and examined the orthopedic doctor, who treated him as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 in support of his contention. The respondent No.2 got examined the Branch Manager of its Company as RW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2. The respondent No.2 contended that the driver of the jeep bearing No.AP-22-U-7569 did not possess a valid driving licence. He was possessing only driving licence of motor cycle with gear of non-transport category, whereas the jeep which he insured was a light motor vehicle of transport category, but admitted in his cross-examination that the driver of the jeep was holding an LMV non-transport driving licence. As such, the dispute was confined to a person driving a transport vehicle by holding a non-transport driving licence.
7. 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-22-U-7569 and held the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.
8. No appeal was filed by the Insurance Company against the said observation of the Tribunal. This Appeal is filed by the injured claimant 4 Dr.GRR, J macma_2282_2008 seeking enhancement of compensation. As such, this Court does not intend to go into the said issue.
9. The Tribunal with regard to the quantum of compensation, awarded Rs.10,000/- towards "pain and suffering" for the grievous injury sustained by the claimant, Rs.9,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.500/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.500/- towards transportation and Rs.1,000/- towards loss of income. In total, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.21,000/- towards compensation to the injured claimant.
10. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the claimant preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation under all the heads under which he was entitled and prayed to enhance the compensation in proportionate to the injuries, treatment and medical expenses incurred by him.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant - claimant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.
12. Perused the record.
13. PW.1 in his evidence stated that due to the accident, he sustained fracture to his left hand and bleeding injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Shadnagar and from there he 5 Dr.GRR, J macma_2282_2008 was referred to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Mahabubnagar, but he took treatment at Sree Dhanvantari Hospital, Mahabubnagar with Dr.G.Laxmikanth Reddy, Orthopedic Surgeon, where he was treated as in- patient from 25.05.2005 to 06.06.2005. During the period of treatment, he underwent operation, a surgery was performed on him on 25.05.2005. Subsequently, he took treatment as out-patient for about four months. During the period of treatment, he was bed ridden, unable to attend to his studies, his education was affected and he lost one precious academic year. He spent Rs.50,000/- for medicines and treatment and Rs.10,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Further, he would need to spend Rs.15,000/- for removal of plate from his hand. Apart from monetory loss, he was subjected to mental agony and suffered physically.
14. He got examined the Orthopedic Surgeon at Dhanvantari Hospital Dr.G.Laxmikanth Reddy as PW.2. PW.2 stated that the claimant was admitted in their hospital on 25.05.2005 and was discharged on 05.06.2005. The claimant sustained fracture of left humerus and pelvic fracture, he was operated for left humerus and a plate was fixed through open reduction and internal fixation (for short "ORIF") and admitted the discharge summary, case sheet and the bills issued by their hospital. He further stated that the claimant was advised medication for a period of three months for pelvic fracture. 6
Dr.GRR, J macma_2282_2008
15. The discharge summary was marked as Ex.A2, the case sheet was marked as Ex.A8 and the medical bills were marked as ExA3.
16. As the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 would disclose that the claimant sustained two fracture injuries (fracture of left humerus and fracture of pelvic bone) and the fracture of pelvic bone was treated conservatively, for the fracture of left humerus an operation was conducted and the same was fixed with plates and screws, the Tribunal ought to have awarded amount for the two fracture injuries, but only awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards "pain and suffering". As such, it is considered fit to enhance the compensation on this count by awarding an amount of Rs.40,000/- under this head @ Rs.20,000/- for each fracture injury. The petitioner had filed medical bills marked under Ex.A3 for an amount of Rs.9,576.25/- issued by Dhanvantari Hospital, which were admitted by PW.2. As such, it is considered fit to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pharmacy bills. The petitioner failed to file medical bill issued towards his admission in the hospital and for the surgery performed on him. As he was admitted as in-patient in a private hospital for a period of ten days, though no bills were filed by the petitioner, as he might have incurred some amount towards his admission in the hospital, it is considered fit to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head 'medical expenses'. 7
Dr.GRR, J macma_2282_2008
17. As a plate was fixed for the fracture of left humerus and it needs to be removed in future, it is considered fit to award an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards his future medical expenses. As some of the family members might have attended him during the period of his admission as in-patient in the hospital and after his discharge from the hospital also, it is considered fit to award an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards attendant charges. The petitioner was a student of final year engineering. No evidence was adduced to show that he was earning while studying, but however, as his studies were affected due to the two fracture injuries sustained by him, it is considered fit to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- under this head, as he might not have attended to the college for a period of two to three months. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards extra nourishment and transportation were also meager, as such it is considered fit to enhance the said amount to Rs.2,500/- each under these heads.
18. Hence, the total compensation entitled by the appellant - claimant under various heads is as follows:
S. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
2. Loss of income Rs.10,000/-
3. Pharmacy Bills Rs.10,000/-
4. Medical Expenses Rs.10,000/-
5. Future medical expenses Rs.5,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs.2,500/-
7. Extra nourishment Rs.2,500/-
8. Transportation Rs.2,500/-
Total: Rs.82,500/-
8
Dr.GRR, J
macma_2282_2008
19. As such, the appellant - claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.82,500/- which is considered as just and reasonable.
20. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation from Rs.21,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.82,500/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum on the enhanced amount. The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount after deducting the amount deposited if any earlier within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant - claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J Date: 21st February, 2024 Nsk.