Telangana High Court
Sivini Amani, Adilabad Dist vs Murukuri Chandraiah, Adilabad Dist And ... on 14 June, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.No.975 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant- petitioner assailing the Judgment, dated 06.12.2016 in O.P.No.239 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Asifabad (for short, 'Tribunal') seeking enhancement of the compensation by setting aside the Judgment.
2. The appellant herein is the petitioner, respondent no.1 herein is the respondent no.1-driver of the offending vehicle and respondent no.2 herein is the respondent no.2-insurance company before the Tribunal. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief factual matrix of the case is as under:-
Petitioner was working as Sweeper at Bellampally Municipality on contract basis and earning Rs.7,000/- per month.
On 31.03.2013, when she was cleaning roads in front of Chunnu Bai Hotel, near Rama talkies, Bellampally, a tractor bearing No.AP-01-Y-5259 came in reverse direction in rash and negligent LNA,J MACMA No.975 of 2017 2 manner with high speed and dashed to her, as a result, she fell down on the road and sustained injuries to his right ankle and foot besides some other injuries all over the body and immediately, she was shifted to Government Hospital at Bellampally and after first aid, she was admitted in Spring Hospital, Karimnagar, where she was treated as inpatient from 31.03.2013 to 09.04.2013 and an operation was conducted on her.
Later, she was again admitted in Bhadrakali Hospital at Karimnagar and from there, she was referred to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where she was treated as inpatient from 02.05.2013 to 14.05.2013 and her right foot was amputated and Rs.2,00,000/- was spent towards hospital and medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation and that due to injuries she suffered pain and agony and still feeling acute pain and she could not attend the work and claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
4. Respondent No.1 filed a counter stating that there was no fault on the part of driver of tractor and denied the age and income of the petitioner. It was further contended the said tractor LNA,J MACMA No.975 of 2017 3 was insured with respondent no.2 and therefore, the respondent no.1 is not liable to pay any compensation.
5. Respondent No.2-insurance company filed counter stating that the petitioner has to prove the manner of accident, age, occupation and loss of income and further contended that respondent no.1 has no valid driving license and thereby, violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy, as such, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.
6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the accident took place as alleged by the petitioner on 31.03.2013 at about 5.30 am near Rama talkies area, Bellampally, as alleged by the petitioner due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tractor bearing No.AP-01-Y-5259 respondent or whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner ?
2. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries and disability as alleged?
3. Whether there was any insurance coverage for the driver of Tractor bearing No.AP-01-Y-5259 and if so, does LNA,J MACMA No.975 of 2017 4 the policy cover the risk of petitioner and if so, was there any breach of policy condition alleged by the respondent?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so what extent and against whom?
5. To what relief?"
7. To substantiate the claim, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A18 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence is adduced.
8. The Tribunal, on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, has come to a conclusion that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver in reverse direction and awarded total compensation of Rs.3,28,200/-.
9. Heard Sri K.Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company.
10. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the Tribunal erred in not granting total LNA,J MACMA No.975 of 2017 5 compensation as claimed by the petitioner and the Tribunal failed to award compensation towards injuries sustained by petitioner. He submitted that Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the petitioner at Rs.6,700/-, though the petitioner used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month by working as sweeper. He further submitted that Tribunal erred in granting meager amount of compensation under conventional heads and also erred in not granting any amount under the heads like injury, loss of earnings, pain and suffering and extra nourishment etc.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for insurance company submitted that the Tribunal, on considering the oral and documentary evidence, had rightly awarded the compensation of Rs.3,28,000/-, which is just and reasonable and needs no interference by this Court and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
Consideration:
12. Though the learned counsel for petitioner raised number of grounds in the present appeal, he mainly contended with regard to non-awarding of compensation towards injuries sustained by LNA,J MACMA No.975 of 2017 6 the petitioner. He contended that the right foot of the petitioner was amputated and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded proper compensation in view of serious injuries. However, perusal of the record and impugned award disclose that as per Ex.A3-discharge summary, petitioner sustained crush injury to his right foot and as per the evidence of P.W.3- Dr.Subodh Kumar, right great toe of the petitioner was removed and the Tribunal on considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner had rightly awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards pain and agony besides a sum of Rs.1,86,300/- towards treatment and medical expenses, which in considered opinion of this Court is just and proper.
13. In considered opinion of this Court, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable and in accordance with evidence placed on record.
14. This Court, having considered the rival submissions on both sides, is of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and further, the learned counsel for petitioner failed to make out any case or point LNA,J MACMA No.975 of 2017 7 out any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date:14.06.2024 BV/kkm