Telangana High Court
Arakala Raghu vs Erabati Surender on 18 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.
78 & 3165 of 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT:
The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.78 of 2019 is filed aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 31.07.2018 (impugned Order) passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.58 of 2014 by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani (for short "the Tribunal"), appellants-Insurance company preferred the present Appeal praying this Court to set aside the impugned Order.
02. The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3165 of 2019 is filed dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded vide impugned Order by the learned the Tribunal, appellant-petitioner preferred the present Appeal praying this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.
03. As the both these Appeals arising out of same impugned Order, the parties are one and the same and 2 they are interlinked with each other, these Appeals are being disposed of by way of this Common Judgment.
04. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the learned Tribunal.
05. Brief facts of the case are that:
Petitioner filed a petition under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act before the learned Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.23,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 25.03.2010.
06. According to petitioner, on 25.03.2010 petitioner (rider) along with one Gajula Raghu (pillion rider) went to N.T.P.C., Ramagundam on their personal work on a Bajaj Motorcycle bearing No. AP 36 Q 6020 and while returning to Godavarikhani at about 09:30 PM., when they reached Armed Reserve Headquarters, Godavarikhani on Rajeev Rahadari, a Lorry bearing No. AP 15 Y 2888 being driven by respondent No.1 had overtaken the bike of petitioner and applied sudden brakes without giving any 3 signals and precautions. Due to which, the motorcycle of petitioner hit lorry and both rider and pillion rider fell down and sustained severe injuries. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Sai Ram Multi-Speciality Hospital, Karimnagar and was treated as in-patient and thereafter shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. Petitioner sustained polytrauma with head injury and cervical neck injury, another head injury involving left fronto parietal depressed fracture, another fracture of left humerus and left femur and cervical spine injury i.e., fracture of C5 and C6. Based on a complaint, a case in Crime No.49 of 2010 by the Police, Ramagundam (Traffic) was registered for the offences under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No.1.
07. As per petitioner, he was aged about 23 years at the time of accident and he was working as driver in Sri Raja Rajeshwara Travels and Transports and earning Rs.8,000/- per month and contributing the same for maintenance of her family. He spent huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, he 4 sought for compensation of Rs.23,00,000/- from respondents.
08. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte before the learned Tribunal. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed common counter denying averments of the claim petition, rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry and the manner of occurrence of the accident. Further, the age, avocation, injuries sustained by petitioner were also denied. It is contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of petitioner and that respondent No.1 has no valid driving license and that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.
09. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled:
i. Whether the motor vehicle accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of crime vehicle?
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, to what amount and if so from whom?
iii. To what relief?5
10. Before the learned Tribunal, petitioner got examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Exs.A1 to A28 & X1 to X5. On behalf of respondents, RW1 and RW2 are examined and Exs.B1 to B3 are marked.
11. Considering the claim of petitioner and counter affidavits filed by respondents and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the Motor Vehicle Original Petition, awarding an amount of Rs.15,47,000/- towards compensation along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be deposited by respondents.
12. Challenging the impugned Order and decree appellants-Insurance company filed the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.78 of 2019 and challenging the quantum of compensation, appellant-petitioner has filed this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3165 of 2019 seeking enhancement of compensation amount.6
13. Heard Sri Ramachandar Rao Vemuganti, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Insurance company.
Perused the material available on record.
14. The main contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that though appellant proved his case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs.A1 to A28, X1 to X5, the learned Tribunal without considering the same, erroneously awarded meager amount towards compensation by deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and granted interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum only and prayed to enhance the compensation amount.
15. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for Insurance company contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of petitioner and that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were not shown as parties and that the learned Tribunal has taken disability at 100% instead of 70% and sought for dismissal of the petition.
7
16. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation amount in addition to the compensation amount granted vide impugned Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal, or whether the impugned Order is liable to be set aside? P O I N T:
17. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents available on record.
18. Petitioner himself was examined as PW1 and reiterated the contents of the claim application and got marked Ex.A1 to A28 and X1 to X5. He deposed that on 25.03.2010 petitioner along with one Gajula Raghu went to N.T.P.C., Ramagundam on a Bajaj Motorcycle bearing No. AP 36 Q 6020 and while returning to Godavarikhani at about 09:30 PM., at Armed Reserve Headquarters, Godavarikhani on Rajeev Rahadari, a Lorry bearing No. AP 15 Y 2888 being driven by respondent No.1 had overtaken the bike of petitioner and negligently applied sudden brakes without giving any signals and precautions, the motorcycle of petitioner hit lorry and both rider and pillion rider fell down and sustained severe injuries. Petitioner 8 sustained polytrauma with head injury and cervical neck injury, another head injury involving left fronto parietal depressed fracture, another fracture of left humerus and left femur and cervical spine injury i.e., fracture of C5 and C6.
19. Apart from oral evidence, petitioner had also relied upon documentary evidence marked as Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A2-Charge sheet. A perusal of Ex.A1-FIR discloses that based on a complaint, a case in Crime No.49 of 2010 by the Police, Ramagundam (Traffic) was registered for the offences under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No.1 and took up investigation and laid Ex.A2-Charge sheet filed against respondent No.1. Ex.A6-Motor Vehicle Inspector Report shows that there was no mechanical defect in the lorry.
20. As regards the manner of accident is concerned, the Tribunal after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere 9 with the said findings of the Tribunal which are based on appreciation of evidence in proper perspective. It is pertinent to state that PW1 who was the rider of the motorcycle, being eyewitness categorically deposed about the manner of the accident. Furthermore, Insurance company before the Tribunal, except taking plea of contributory negligence, did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to disprove the evidence of PW1. Hence, learned Tribunal after considering above all aspects answered the issue in favour of petitioner. Further, Police after thorough investigation laid charge sheet against the lorry driver stating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver. Therefore, there is no contributory negligence on the part of PW1 in the road traffic accident and the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.78 of 2019 filed by Insurance company is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
21. PW2-Deputy Finance Manager, RG-III Area, deposed that the father of petitioner being employee in Singareni Collieries Company Limited, claimed an amount of Rs.4,35,000/- and an 10 amount of Rs.1,26,231-69 ps., only was sanctioned towards medical reimbursement.
22. PW3-Medical Superintendent in Singareni Area Hospital, Godavarikhani about admission of petitioner in their hospital with following injuries:
a. Fracture of shift of humerus left.
b. Fracture lower 1/3rd femur left.
c. Fracture fronto parietal bone left.
d. Fracture of C5 and C6 spine process with
head injury.
23. PW3 further deposed that vide Ex.A15- Referral letter dated 14.05.2010 petitioner was referred to Kamineni Hospital at Hyderabad for further treatment. Again vide Ex.A18-Referral letter dated 02.07.2013 he was referred to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad.
24. PW4-Additioanl General Manager in RG-II deposed that vide Ex.A24-Mines Vocational Training copy dated 21.10.2009 petitioner had 11 undergone driver training at training center of Singareni Collieries Company Limited., and working as driver of Sri Raja Rajeshwara Travels and Transport and earning Rs.8,000/- per month.
25. PW5-Managing Director of Sri Raja Rajeshwara Travels and Transport deposed that they had tie-up with Singareni Collieries Company Limited., and that petitioner who was trained at Singareni Collieries Company Limited., worked as driver under PW5 and he was paid Rs.8,000/- per month vide Ex.X23-Salary Certificate.
26. PW6-RMO of Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad deposed that petitioner admitted in their hospital on 01.04.2010 and on examination, PW6 found RTA polytrauma, head injury, left fronto parietal depressed fracture with EDH and SAH with IVH, fracture of left humerus and left femur and cervical spine sugure, fracture of C5 and C6 and sepsis. All injuries are grievous in nature. Ex.A10-Discharge summary issued by Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad.
12
27. PW7-Ortho Surgeon at Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad deposed that he had conducted surgery for the fracture of femur and fracture of humerus. Ex.A25- Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board assessing the disability of petitioner at the rate of 70% permanent disability.
28. During cross-examination, nothing was elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 to PW7, except giving suggestions which were denied by the witnesses.
29. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, petitioner is aged 27 years at the time of accident and he was produced before the learned Tribunal and on seeing petitioner, the learned Tribunal has given a finding that he is not able to walk without an iron walker and further considering Ex.A25-Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board assessing the disability of petitioner at the rate of 70% permanent disability and also taking into account the fact that petitioner cannot work as driver as he 13 suffered major injuries which are grievous in nature, the learned Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.16,32,000/- towards of loss of future income. While calculating the compensation, the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of Rs.16,32,000/- towards personal expenses of petitioner.
30. In Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (dead) through Lrs. and others 1 the Honourable Supreme Court of India held that:
"16. The High Court deducted 50% of compensation towards personal expenses. The present case being not of death and the claim not being made by the dependents, but the same being by a survivor in the accident with severe injuries resulting into permanent disability, there could not be any justification for deduction of personal expenses. We do not approve the said deduction in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Lalan D. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2"
31. In the above authority, the Honourable Supreme Court of India made it clear that the personal expenses cannot be deducted in the case of the injuries. The present case on hand is of 1 Civil Appeal (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.26871 of 2019) & Civil Appeal (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 27394 of 2019) 2 (2020) 9 SCC 805 14 injuries wherein petitioner suffered five major injuries and became permanently disabled. Therefore, keeping in view above settled principle and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, this Court is inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal with regard to deduction of personal expenses of injured- petitioner. Therefore, without deduction of personal expenses, petitioner is entitled for Rs.16,32,000/- towards future loss of income.
32. In so far as interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, which is at lower side. This Court by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 3 inclined to enhance the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal from 6 percent to 7.5 percent per annum, on entire compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of realization.
3 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 15
33. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner is entitled for Rs.16,32,000/- towards future loss of income. The compensation amount granted by the learned Tribunal under other heads i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.20,000/- for each injury), Rs.3,09,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards travel expenses and pain and sufferance, are held good. Thus, in all, petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.20,91,000/-. The compensation amount is enhanced to Rs.20,91,000/- from Rs.15,47,000/-. The entire compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The enhanced compensation amount along with enhanced interest shall be deposited by respondents in M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2019 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.
16
34. In the result, Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.78 of 2019 filed by Insurance company, is hereby dismissed. The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3165 of 2019 filed by petitioner is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.15,47,000/- to Rs.20,91,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 18-MAR-2024 KHRM