Telangana High Court
Mohd Faheem Begum vs Shaik Faheemuddin on 7 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
MACMA NO.673 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
Being aggrieved by the order dated 06-08-2014 in OP.No.5 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short 'M.A.C.T.') cum IX Addl. District Judge, Kamareddy, where under, her petition vide OP.No.5 of 2013 for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the injuries caused to her in a road traffic accident was partly allowed by awarding a sum of Rs.70,000/-, the petitioner in the above referred MVOP has filed this Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'M.V. Act') with a prayer to enhance the compensation from Rs.70,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- on the following grounds.
2. The tribunal failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and did not consider the evidence of PW.2, the Medical Officer who provided treatment to her and did not consider Ex.A3 - wound certificate and granted meager amount of Rs.70,000/-. The appellant has also 2 SSRN, J MACMA.No.673 of 2019 claimed that the tribunal failed to award reasonable amount towards extra nourishment, transport charges, attendant charges and only a sum of Rs.30,000/- was awarded towards pain and sufferance in spite of the fact that she received grievous injuries. The tribunal did not award appropriate rate of interest, thereby, prayed for enhancement of the compensation.
3. As could be seen from the impugned order, the appellant herein has filed the said OP.No.5 of 2013 on the ground that on 15-07-2012, when she and her family members were travelling in a Maruti Omni Van bearing No. AP 25M 2999 and when the Van reached a bridge at Adloor Village, the driver of TATA Indica Car bearing No.AP 25AG 8600 drove the Car in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Maruti van. Therefore, she suffered grievous injuries. The appellant has claimed that the accident caused dislocation of right side hip, fracture of femoral head, fracture of neck femur, fracture of ribs apart from other grievous injuries. Therefore, the appellant has filed the above referred petition against the owner and insurer 3 SSRN, J MACMA.No.673 of 2019 of the above said TATA Indica Car. Both the respondents have opposed the claim by filing separate written statements. The tribunal has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA Indica Car bearing No.AP 25AG 8600?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation amount? If so, from whom and to what amount?
3. To what relief?
4. During the enquiry, the appellant herein was examined as PW.1 and Civil Asst., Government Surgeon, Medical Officer, Kamareddy, who provided treatment to the appellant herein was examined as PW.2. She has marked Exs.A1 to A13 which includes certified copies of FIR, charge sheet etc. with regard to case registered against the driver of the above said car and also the medical record.
Consequently, Insurance Company has examined its employee as RW.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B3.
5. The tribunal having appreciated the pleadings and evidence of all the witnesses, came to a conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the 4 SSRN, J MACMA.No.673 of 2019 driver of Indica Car and also found that the petitioner received injuries and awarded an amount of Rs.70,000/-.
6. Heard both parties.
7. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the tribunal failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence produced by the appellant in a proper way and granted insufficient amount as compensation, if so, whether the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation?
8. The appellant herein has filed the above said original petition for compensation on account of the injuries caused to her in a road traffic accident. The appellant has claimed that she suffered grievous injuries. One of the said injury was dislocation of the hip on right side. The appellant has claimed that due to the said injury, she has incurred an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for treatment, extra nourishment and lost considerable income in view of the injuries caused to her. The tribunal having accepted the contentions of the appellant, when she received injuries in a road accident and the said accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the TATA Indica Car, awarded an amount of Rs.70,000/- which includes an amount of 5 SSRN, J MACMA.No.673 of 2019 Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for pain and sufferance, Rs.15,000/- towards medicines, hospital charges, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income and Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges, transportation, expenditure and extra nourishment.
9. Even though, the respondents No.1 and 2 have disputed the claim of appellant about the manner of accident and though they claimed that there was no such rash or negligent driving by the driver of the car, the tribunal having appreciated the evidence of PW.1 and the other record including the charge sheet filed against the car driver, found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of TATA Indica Car owned by respondent No.1 and which was insured with respondent No.2. The respondents did not file any appeal against the said finding.
10. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant questioning the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with medical record clearly shows that the appellant suffered fracture of the hip and other grievous 6 SSRN, J MACMA.No.673 of 2019 injuries. But the Court below granted a meager amount of Rs.70,000/-.
11. According to the evidence of PW.2, he has deposed before the tribunal that the injuries mentioned in Ex.A3 are grievous in nature. It seems, the appellant suffered dislocation of the hip on the right side. Even though, the appellant has filed discharge summary from KIMS Hospital and Poulymi Hospital respectively, the tribunal did not accept these two documents on the ground that the appellant could not examine the concerned Medical Officers from the above said hospitals. According to the evidence of PW.2, it is very clear that the injuries mentioned in Ex.B2 are corresponding with the injuries noted in Exs.A4 and A6 discharge summaries. There is no evidence from the side of respondent/Insurance Company to establish that these discharge summaries were created by the appellant herein. When the evidence of PW.2 itself shows that the appellant suffered grievous injury like dislocation of hip and was treated in two Corporate Hospitals which is evident from Exs.A4 and A6, the Court below could have considered that she must 7 SSRN, J MACMA.No.673 of 2019 have incurred minimum expenditure for obtaining treatment. As rightly claimed by the appellant that the tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and sufferings by ignoring the evidence of PW.2 that the appellant received multiple grievous injuries.
12. Even though, the contention of appellant that she spent Rs.2,00,000/- is not supported by any acceptable evidence in view of the failure of the appellant to examine a concerned billing employee from the above referred two Hospitals, but still the Court can consider that unless she spent minimum expenditure, she could not have obtained treatment from the said Hospitals. Therefore, the Court below could have awarded a reasonable compensation for the injuries as well as towards medical expenditure. Since the evidence of PW.2 and Ex.A3 shows that the appellant suffered a blunt injury over right hip, deformity of hip joint, swelling and loss of function, a reasonable amount of Rs.60,000/- can be awarded towards pain and sufferance of the above injury. In view of the gravity of the injury, she could have obtained the treatment from the above referred two Hospitals and must 8 SSRN, J MACMA.No.673 of 2019 have spent at least Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, in addition to the amount already awarded by the tribunal, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.60,000/-. Therefore, the same can be awarded in favour of the appellant.
13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The compensation amount is increased from Rs.70,000/- to Rs.1,30,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of accident till the entire amount is realized.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. No costs.
________________________ SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, J 7th March, 2024 PLV