Telangana High Court
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. ... vs M.Abhishikth And Another on 22 January, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1927 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 06.02.2017 in M.V.O.P.No.1103 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The said M.V.O.P. filed by the petitioner therein seeking compensation for injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 26.11.2011 was partly allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed at the instance of respondent No.2 before the Tribunal i.e., the insurance company.
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 he was travelling in Volvo bus bearing No.KA 01 AD 7150 from Bangalore to Hyderabad on 25.11.2011, when the bus reached near Kambalapally X road at about 01:30 AM on 26.11.2011, the driver of the said bus drove in 2 MGP,J MACMA_1927_2017 rash and negligent manner in high speed without following traffic rules and caused accident. The accident occurred, when the driver of the said bus dashed a stationed Eicher van bearing No.HR 69 A 4817 from back side, due to which the inmates of the bus received grievous injuries. The petitioner also sustained multiple fracture injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Penukonda, Anantapur District and after first aid, he was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad, for better treatment. In the said hospital, the petitioner was admitted as inpatient and underwent several surgeries. In this regard, on a complaint a case was registered in Crime No.79 of 2011 against the driver of Volvo bus bearing No.KA 01 AD 7150, on the file of Police Station Chilamathur.
4. It is further the case of the petitioner that he was hale and healthy before the accident. He was working as software engineer [Solutions Rep.III (TS-III)] in Hewlett Packard Global Soft Private Limited, Bangalore, and earning an amount of Rs.32,227/- per month. Due to the accident, he did not attend his office for a period of 18 months and he lost one promotion chance. The petitioner incurred medical expenses of more than Rs.15,00,000/- 3
MGP,J MACMA_1927_2017 and he requires more surgeries in future also to remove the stent which is placed in his head. He is the only earning member of his family. The accident took place solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of Volvo bus bearing No.KA 01 AD 7150. Hence, respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the insured are liable to pay compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- together with interest to the petitioner.
5. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed its counter denying the averments of the claim petition such as manner of the accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner, ownership of the vehicle involved in the accident, driving license of the driver of the vehicle and also negligence of the driver. It is also contended that respondent No.1 did not comply the statutory mandate of intimating the details of the accident to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 also denied the employment and salary of the petitioner. It is lastly contended that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the owner of the Eicher van bearing No.HR 69 A 4817, as the accident occurred due to collusion of both the vehicles. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition as the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. 4
MGP,J MACMA_1927_2017
6. In support of his case, the petitioner got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-13. On behalf of respondent No.2, no witnesses were examined, but Ex.B-1 was got marked.
7. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the petitioner has successfully established his case. Hence, the claim petition was allowed holding that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed at the instance of respondent No.2 i.e., insurance company.
8. Heard, both sides.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2 is that the Tribunal without deducting the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, which was claimed by the petitioner under Medi-claim has granted excess amount towards compensation. It is also contended that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties as the petitioner has not made the owner of Eicher van bearing No. HR 69 A 4817, which was also involved in the accident along with the Volvo bus owned by respondent No.1, as party to the claim petition. It is also 5 MGP,J MACMA_1927_2017 contended that the compensation granted is on higher side. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/petitioner contended that the Tribunal after considering all the aspects has granted just and reasonable compensation and interference of this Court is unwarranted. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
11. Now point for determination is as follows:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as granted by the Tribunal?"
Point:-
12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents placed on record by both the parties. The petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1, reiterated the contents of the claim petition got marked Exs.A-1 to A-11. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 categorically denied the suggestions put to him. In order to prove the injuries sustained by him, he got examined P.W.2, who is Senior Consultant Surgeon in KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad. P.W.2 deposed that the petitioner was diagnosed with head injury 6 MGP,J MACMA_1927_2017 and he was evaluated by C.T.Scan suggestive of acute subdural Hematoma with mass effect with medicine sift, chest (L) X ray and ultra sound abdomen shown normal. P.W.1 was found to have abrasions right hand for which plastic surgery consultation was taken. P.W.1 also underwent decompresive craniectomy surgery for head injury on 27.11.2011 and was maintained in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and needed long fever ventilator support post operation. Hence, tracheotomy on 29.11.2011 and gradually weaned off.
13. P.W.2 further deposed that the petitioner developed meningitis infection and the same was managed symptomatically. They repeated C.T.Scan Neuro Hydrocephalus for which ventriculo-peritoneal shunt dove on 22.12.2011 with left frontal hematoma evacuation. Still bvlg (brain bulg) noted and he underwent bone flap on 27.12.2012. Gradually, the health of the petitioner was improved and he was discharged on 08.01.2012 in stable condition. P.W.2 further deposed that the petitioner was re-admitted on 07.02.2012 with history of Sunkan bone flap, which was evaluated and correction of bone flap was done on 08.02.2012. He also underwent plastic surgery for his left middle 7 MGP,J MACMA_1927_2017 finger i.e., left middle finger bountonious defornatory and he was discharged on 09.02.2012. In the cross-examination of P.W.2, nothing contrary was elicited and he denied the suggestions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 before the Tribunal.
14. Admittedly, Ex.A-1-copy of FIR in Crime No.79 of 2011 and Ex.A-2 copy of charge sheet dated 28.11.2011 clearly establish the occurrence of the accident and involvement of the Volvo bus owned by respondent No.1 in the accident. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A-3 injury certificate, Ex.A-4 estimation of future surgeries issued by KIMS, Ex.A-7 bunch of medical bills, Ex.A-8 Discharge summary dated 08.01.2012, Ex.A-9- X-rays and Ex.A-10 discharge summary dated 09.02.2012 clearly establish the injuries sustained by the petitioner, treatment underwent by him and also the expenditure incurred by him for the said treatment. Further, Ex.A-5 pay slip of the petitioner for the month of October, 2011, Ex.A-6 Form No.16 for the year 2011-12 and Ex.A-11 copy of pan card prove the employment and income of the petitioner. Ex.B-1 copy of insurance policy clearly discloses that the Volvo bus bearing 8 MGP,J MACMA_1927_2017 No.KA 01 AD 7150 involved in the accident was having valid and effective insurance policy as on the date of the accident.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2 contended that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed for non- joinder of parties as the petitioner did not made the owner of Eicher van bearing No. HR 69 A 4817, which was also involved in the accident along with the Volvo bus owned by respondent No.1, as party to the claim petition. A perusal of Ex.A-1-copy of FIR and Ex.A-2 copy of charge sheet discloses that the driver of the Volvo bus bearing No.KA 01 AD 7150 drove the bus in high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed a wrongly stationed Eicher van bearing No.HR 69 A 4817. In this regard, FIR was registered under Ex.A-1 and after investigation, police laid charge sheet under Ex.A-2 against drivers of both the Volvo bus and Eicher van.
16. It is pertinent to state that, in the present case, the petitioner was travelling in the Volvo bus bearing No.KA 01 AD 7150, which is owned by respondent No.1, as a passenger. Admittedly, there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner for the occurrence of the accident. The negligence is restricted only to 9 MGP,J MACMA_1927_2017 drivers of the Volvo bus as well as Eicher van and the negligence is composite and not contributory. In composite negligence, the petitioner is having right to proceed against the wrongdoers individually or jointly. In the present case, the petitioner chose to proceed against one wrongdoer i.e., the owner of the Volvo bus, as he was bona fide passenger of the said bus. In the said circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2 that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties is unsustainable.
17. Though, other grounds were raised, the main ground raised in the present appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2 is that the Tribunal without deducting the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, which was claimed by the petitioner under Medi-claim has granted excess amount towards compensation. It is pertinent to state that admittedly, the petitioner has claimed Rs.4,00,000/- from medi-claim and the same has been deducted from the hospital bills. It is pertinent to state that the petitioner has taken medi-claim policy from his personal funds for his personal health benefits. In the present case, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of 10 MGP,J MACMA_1927_2017 Volvo bus, in which the petitioner was travelling as bona fide passenger. Hence, the petitioner cannot be deprived of compensation by deducting Rs.4,00,000/- which was claimed by him from medi-claim, which was obtained by him paying separate premium for his personal health issues. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects and has not deducted Rs.4,00,000/- claimed by the petitioner from medi-claim, while granting compensation and interference of this Court is unwarranted.
18. Coming to other aspects, this Court is of the considered opinion that Tribunal after considering the age, salary, occupation, injuries sustained and other aspects has granted just and reasonable compensation to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Hence, interference of this Court into the said aspects is unwarranted. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
19. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2017 in M.V.O.P.No.1103 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of 11 MGP,J MACMA_1927_2017 cases under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 22.01.2024 GVR