Telangana High Court
Dugyala Ashok vs R Gopal on 11 January, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1981 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against order and decree dated 18.12.2017 in M.V.O.P.No.789 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge at Khammam (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The said O.P. filed by the petitioner therein seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 18.02.2014 was partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.1,85,294/-. Dissatisfied by the same, the present appeal is at the instance of the petitioner before the Tribunal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 17.02.2014, he had been to his native village Palakurthi of Warangal District on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 AF 8840 and on the next date i.e., on 18.02.2014 in early hours, he started from the said village on his motorcycle to go to Kodad. At about 08:00 hours, when he 2 MGP,J MACMA_1981_2018 reached near Mandadi Narsaiahgudem village on R&B road leading from Nayakangudem to Kodad, a tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 24 Y 6553 and 6554 came in high speed in opposite direction driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner. Due to the said accident the petitioner sustained grievous and multiple injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Dr.P.N.V.S.V.Prasad's Hospital, Khammam, for treatment and later, he was shifted to Ozone Hospital, Hyderabad, wherein X-rays were taken. During the course of treatment as inpatient, he underwent surgery to his right leg, insertion of steel plates and K-wiring was applied and he was discharged on 08.03.2014 with an advice to attend follow up treatment. He also underwent physiotherapy treatment.
4. It is further case of the petitioner that on 26.05.2014, he was again admitted in the hospital as inpatient for OP-MIPO right tibia with infected implant and delayed union and another surgery was conducted for removal of infected implants. He was discharged on 28.05.2014 with an advice for follow up treatment.As the fracture did not unite, he was again admitted in the hospital on 12.03.2015 and again underwent surgery for right 3 MGP,J MACMA_1981_2018 leg and he was finally discharged on 15.03.2015 with advice to attend follow up treatment for six months. Even, as on the date of claim petition, the petitioner was continuing medicines. It is his case that he spent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses, attendant, transportation and extra nourishment charges. Based on the report, a case was registered in Crime No.47 of 2014 under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the file of Kusumanchi Police Station and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the driver of the said tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 24 Y 6553 and 6554.
5. According to the petitioner, he was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he was aged about 30 years as on the date of the accident. He used to work as cashier in Venkateshwara Wine Shop at Kodad and was being paid an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month towards salary. Hence, the petitioner filed the present claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondents, who are owner and insurer of the tractor and trailer involved in the accident.
4
MGP,J MACMA_1981_2018
6. Respondent No.1 was set ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed its counter denying the averments of the claim petition such as age, wages and manner of the accident. It is contended that the driver of tractor and trailer involved in the accident was not having valid license at the time of the accident and that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the claim petitioner, but not the driver of the tractor and trailer. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
7. In support of the case of the petitioner, he got examined himself as P.W.1 and also got examined P.Ws.2 to 4 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-16. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W.1 was got examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were got marked. Respondent No.2 summoned RTA authority and got examined as R.W.2 and Exs.X-1 and X-2 were got marked.
8. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the petitioner has successfully established his case. Hence, the claim petition was partly allowed holding that respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,85,294/- and case against respondent No.1 was dismissed. Dissatisfied 5 MGP,J MACMA_1981_2018 with the said compensation, the present appeal has been preferred by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner. Despite service of notice, none appeared and there is no representation for respondents/respondents.
10. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellant/petitioner is that the petitioner sustained severe and grievous injuries and he has been undergoing treatment continuously in one hospital or other. Even, as on the date of claim petition, he was undergoing treatment, but the Tribunal without considering the same has awarded meager amount towards compensation. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation.
11. Now point for determination is as follows:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal as prayed for?"
Point:-
12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents placed on record by both the parties. The petitioner, himself got 6 MGP,J MACMA_1981_2018 examined as P.W.1 and reiterated the contents of the claim petition. In order to prove injuries sustained by him, the petitioner got examined P.W.2, who is consultant orthopedic surgeon. He deposed that on 18.02.2014, the petitioner went to his hospital with injuries sustained in road traffic accident i.e., closed fracture of tibia and fibula right, fracture to patella right and fibula head fracture. All the three injuries were grievous in nature and X-rays were taken. After which, he was admitted as inpatient in hospital on the same day. During the course of treatment, the petitioner was diagnosed with fat-embolism syndrome which was treated conservatively in Intensive Care Unit (ICU). He was then operated with MIPO-Plate and cylindrical slab applied for patella fracture on 25.02.2014 and on 06.03.2014, he was discharged.
13. P.W.2 also deposed that on 26.05.2014, the petitioner again got admitted with complaint of pain and puss discharge from operated side on right leg with delayed union. During the treatment, implants were removed on the same day and antibiotic bead chain was inserted under spiral anesthesia and appropriate 7 MGP,J MACMA_1981_2018 medication was advised. He was discharged on 28.05.2014 with advice for review definitive surgery.
14. The petitioner also got examined P.W.3, who is another orthopedic surgeon. He deposed that he is running hospital in the name and style Srujan Orthopedic Hospital, Khammam and the claim petitioner came to his hospital, on 22.08.2014, for follow up treatment for the surgery done to him in Hyderabad about six months ago. He further deposed that the petitioner was under his treatment for non-union of the right leg, so options were given to him to weight watch for illizrove fictation and advised to continue walking with PTB case which was applied to the petitioner on 01.09.2014. He also stated that further surgery was performed to the petitioner and he was under follow up treatment till 24.04.2015.
15. In view of the above, it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner and also treatment underwent by him in various hospitals, as the same is proved through the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. The Tribunal has considered the evidence as well as documents filed by the petitioner, which were supported by P.Ws.2 and 3, and 8 MGP,J MACMA_1981_2018 awarded compensation to the petitioner. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,22,294/- towards medical expenses and transportation charges and Rs.15,000/- toward extra nourishment and attendant charges.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant contended that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards pain and suffering. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that an amount of Rs.25,000/- can be granted towards pain and suffering to the petitioner.
17. Now, coming to the aspect of loss of income, the petitioner underwent treatment and surgeries and he was advised for bed rest for a period of six months. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken the income of the petitioner as Rs.8,000/- per month and awarded loss of income for period of six months, which comes to Rs.48,000/-. However, the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner contended that the petitioner was advised bed rest for a period of one year, but the Tribunal has awarded loss of income for only six months period. As per record, the date of the accident is 18.02.2014 and after undergoing several surgeries, the petitioner was ultimately discharged on 28.05.2014 and doctors 9 MGP,J MACMA_1981_2018 advised the petitioner to take bed rest for period of six months. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner can be granted further loss of income for four months, which comes to Rs.32,000/- (Rs.8,000/- X 4 months), which is in addition to loss of income of Rs.48,000/-, which is already granted by the Tribunal. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.80,000/- in total towards loss of income.
18. The total quantum of compensation after adding the enhancements granted by this Court comes to Rs.2,42,294/- [already granted by the Tribunal : Rs.1,85,294/- + pain and suffering : Rs.25,000/- + additional loss of income : Rs.32,000/-]. The same is rounded off to Rs.2,42,000/-.
19. Coming to the aspect of interest, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly awarded interest on the compensation amount and interference of this Court is unwarranted.
20. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,85,294/- to Rs.2,42,000/- and the rest of the findings in 10 MGP,J MACMA_1981_2018 order and decree dated 18.12.2017 in M.V.O.P.No.789 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge at Khammam, are hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 11.01.2024 GVR