Telangana High Court
Dasoju Shankara Chary vs Oruganti Mahesh And 2 Others on 4 July, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.542 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 04.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.742 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 05.04.2016 he boarded an auto bearing No.AP-24X-6176 at Narkatpally in order to go to Kattangur for his personal work, at about 10:30 a.m., the said auto reached the outskirts of A.P Lingotam Village and when the auto got down the service road, the driver of the auto has driven it in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, and suddenly turned the auto towards left side, due to which the auto turned turtle. As a result of which, the claimant and other inmates of the auto fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Narkatpelly and after First Aid, he was admitted in Sai Sanjeevani Hospital, Hyderabad. The petitioner incurred huge expenditure for his treatment and thus has sought a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.
ETD,J MACMA No.542_2021 2
4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 were set ex-parte.
5. Respondent No.3 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the injured. In addition to that it is contended that, the owner of the auto has handed it over to a driver who does not possess a valid driving license and thus, has violated the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and that it is not liable to pay any compensation.
6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the claimant sustained injuries in the road accident occurred on 05.04.2016 at about 10:30 a.m., at the outskirts of A.P Lingotam Village of Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP-24X-6176?
2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation, if so, from which and to what amount?
3. To what relief?
7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.
8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,04,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant.
ETD,J MACMA No.542_2021 3
9. Heard the submissions of Smt. S. Annapurana, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the petitioner has sustained three simple injuries and one grievous injury in the accident and that the Tribunal has awarded a very low compensation. She further argued that the petitioner was aged 50 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, and that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the petitioner to be very low as Rs.8,000/- and that the Tribunal failed to consider the disability aspect, though they have adduced evidence of PW2 and produced disability certificate, proving that the petitioner sustained 40% disability. She further argued that the loss of earnings is assessed by the Tribunal for only one month, though the petitioner sustained grievous injury and has taken four months for recovery and has therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the Doctor/PW2 who was examined before the Tribunal has admitted all the suggestions posed by the respondent counsel. Thus, the disability pleaded by the petitioner is not proved and further has submitted that Ex.A4 is a created document and that the petitioner has not sustained any disability and therefore, submitted that no amount need to be awarded for disability. He ETD,J MACMA No.542_2021 4 further submitted that the appeal lacks merits and has prayed to confirm the Tribunal's order by dismissing the appeal.
12. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation?
2. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference?
3. To what relief?
13. Point No.1:-
a) The case of the appellant is that, he sustained grievous injuries in the accident and that he incurred huge medical expenditure, while the Tribunal has granted meagre amount of compensation. In support of his case, he got examined PW2 and PW3 before the tribunal.
b) PW3 is a consultant Orthopedic Surgeon of Sai Sanjeevani Hospital. His evidence reveals that the petitioner was admitted on 08.04.2016 having suffered with road traffic accident. His evidence reveals that the petitioner was treated as in patient and surgery was performed on 10.04.2016. He also deposed that their hospital has issued Ex.A5/Discharge Summary and that the petitioner was coming for follow up treatment regularly for about three to four months.
ETD,J MACMA No.542_2021 5
c) PW2/Dr. I. Kameshwar, an Orthopedic Surgeon at Government Hospital, Nalgonda, has deposed with regard to disability certificate issued by him being a member of District Medical Board. In his cross examination, he has admitted that they have not filled up certain columns in Ex.A4 with regard to the identification of the applicant and the history, age of injury and the date of examination of PW1. The nature of disability i.e., whether temporary or permanent is also not stated.
d) Though a suggestion was given in his cross examination and admitted by PW3 that that there is no Medico-Legal Certificate issued in this case, Ex.P2 is the Medico-Legal Case Record dated 05.04.2016. It is elicited from him that the treatment was given under Aarogya Sree and therefore, the X-rays and reports will be available in the Aarogya Sree department. Thus, it is elicited from the evidence on record that discharge summary at Ex.P5 shows that he was treated at Sai Sanjeevani Hospitals. It is clear from the evidence of PW3 and Ex.P5 that he was treated under Arogya Shree Scheme. Hence, naturally the original medical record will be available in the said department. The disability certificate filed under Ex.P4 shows that the petitioner has sustained 40% disability and that it is post traumatic sequel limb.
e) An overall perusal of the evidence of PW2 reveals that the petitioner has sustained 40% permanent disability due to post ETD,J MACMA No.542_2021 6 traumatic sequel left hip with a restricted movement of hip joint and shortening of left lower limb. Though the said words do appear in Ex.A4, during his cross examination, he has admitted that certain columns are left blank. The said columns are formal in nature, but as far as the extent and cause of disability is concerned, he deposed with regard to the 40% disability due to post traumatic sequel limb and the same is mentioned in Ex.A4. Ex.P2 is the Medico-Legal Case Record showing that the petitioner sustained 5 simple injuries and one grievous injury which is a fracture to left femur. The injuries as elicited from Ex.P2 and the injuries spoken by PW2 and PW3 and also Ex.P4 have a nexus. Therefore, the same can be relied upon while awarding compensation. Keeping in view the medical record filed by the petitioner and other evidence on record, it is held that the petitioner must have suffered acute pain and suffering due to the said injuries during the entire period of recovery. Therefore Rs.50,000/- is granted under the head pain and suffering.
f) With regard to medical expenses, since it was a free treatment, no amount has been paid to the hospital. However, some amount towards incidental expenses cannot be ignored. Considering the same, an amount of Rs. 50,000/ is awarded under the head "transport, attendant charges, extra-nourishment and other incidental expenses etc.,"
ETD,J MACMA No.542_2021 7
g) The petitioner has stated that he used to work as Carpenter and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the injured as Rs.8,000/- which appears to be justified. The petitioner suffered disability, so loss of earnings for one year is awarded i.e., Rs.8,000 x 12 = 96,000/-.
h) Keeping in view the dicta laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar 1, 40% of disability as disclosed from Ex.A8 is scaled down to 25% with regard to whole body and the loss of earnings is scaled down to 10%. The petitioner is aged about 50 years. Therefore, after adding future prospects of 10%, monthly income would be Rs.8,800/- and the loss of future earnings is arrived at Rs.8,800 x12 = 1,05,600 x 10% x 13 which comes up to Rs. 1,37,280/-.
i) In all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts:
1. Compensation under the head 'injuries, 50,000/-
shock, Pain and suffering
2. Loss of earnings 96,000/-
3. Loss of future earnings due to disability 1,37,280/-
4. Compensation under the head of 50,000/-
medical expenses, transport, attendant
charges, extra-nourishment and other
incidental expenses
Total 3,33,280/-
o) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is
entitled is calculated as Rs.3,33,280/- while the Tribunal has 1 2011 (10 SCC 343 ETD,J MACMA No.542_2021 8 granted Rs.1,04,000/- Thus, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly.
14. Point No.2:-
In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, it is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.3,33,280/- from that of Rs.1,04,000/- that is awarded by the Tribunal.
Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
15. Point No.3:-
In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimant is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 04.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.742 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,04,000/- to 3,33,280/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already ETD,J MACMA No.542_2021 9 deposited. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date: 04.07.2025 ds