Telangana High Court
Abdul Junaid vs Murki Thirupathi on 20 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
M.A.C.M.A.No.70 of 2020
JUDGMENT:
This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the Award and decree dated 03.01.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.334 of 2016 by the Chairman, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-I Additional District Judge, Adilabad, (for short, 'the Tribunal') seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 22.03.2016.
2. The brief fact of the case is that appellant/claimant filed M.V.O.P.No.334 of 2016 under Section 166(1)(a) of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by the Tata Magic Auto . It is contended that on 22.03.2016, the petitioner while proceeding in Tata Magic Auto bearing No.AP-01-TV-3649 from Mancherial towards Kagaznagar and when he reached near Vinay Garden, the driver of Tata Magic Auto all of sudden drove the said Auto in high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed to Hero HF Motorcycle bearing No.AP-01-AF-7655 from opposite direction due to which the petitioner sustained fracture and grievous injuries all over the 2 NNR,J MACMA No.70 of 2020 body. The petitioner was taken to Government Hospital, Sirpur-T and thereafter shifted to Ranee Hospital, Karminagar for better treatment. The Police registered a case in Crime No.27 of 2016 and filed charge sheet under Section 304-A and 338 IPC against the driver of the offending Tata Magic Auto.
3. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was that due to accident, the petitioner sustained i) commuted Fracture lateral condoyle of Eaptullum of hummers with unstable dislocation of left elbow, ii) MCL rupture of elbow fracture of left elbow, iii) 2nd, 3rd and 4th carpmetacarpal fracture dislocation of left hand, iv) bennets fracture of left hand v) compartment syndrome left hand, vi) Pin palsy and other injuries and also underwent surgical operations for which the petitioner had incurred an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards hospital and medical expenses and claimed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- under various heads as compensation for the said accident.
4. Before the learned Tribunal, Respondents No.1, 2 driver and owner of offending auto rickshaw bearing No. AP-01-TV-3649 and respondent No.4 owner of Hero HF Delux motorcycle bearing No.AP-01- AF-7655 remained ex-parte. The respondent Nos.3 & 5 - HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company and New India Assurance Company filed 3 NNR,J MACMA No.70 of 2020 their counter-affidavits, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and and further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under:
"i) Whether the accident took place as alleged by the petitioner on 22.03.2016 while the petitioner along with other persons were proceeding in TATA Magic Auto bearing No.AP01-TV-3649 from Mancherial towards Kaghaznagar and at about 19:00 hours when they reached near Vinay Garden outskirts of Kaghaznagar, all of sudden the driver of TATA Magic Auto/respondent No.1 drove it in high speed in rash, careless and negligent manner and dashed Hero HF Delux Motorcycle bearing No.AP-01-AF-7655 from opposite direction due to which, the petitioner sustained severe injuries, or whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner?
2. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries? If so, whether it leads to disability as alleged?
3. Whether the TATA Magic Auto bearing No.AP-01-TV-3649 of R1 and the Hero HF Delux motorcycle bearing No.AP-01-AF-7655 of R4 were stood insured with respondent No.3 and 5/Insurance Companies respectively? And if so, does the policies cover the risk of petitioner and if so, was there any breach of policy conditions by the owners/respondent Nos.2 & 4 respectively?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, what is the quantum and against whom?
5. To what relief?"
6. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence and going into the entire record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the 4 NNR,J MACMA No.70 of 2020 learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.
7. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the meager compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground among other grounds that the learned Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto, however not granted just compensation amount as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner examined PW.1 and filed documents marked as Ex.A1 to A22 and proved that he has received grievous injuries due to the accident.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that petitioner was hale and healthy and was aged 23 years and earning Rs.15,000/- per month as Software Engineer as on the date of accident. The petitioner was admitted in Renee Hospital and he was discharged from the said hospital on 30.03.2016 with an advice to take complete bed rest. Learned counsel further argued that petitioner was unable to do day to day affairs i.e., unable to lift weights, drive two wheeler and also contended that petitioner has suffered permanent disability, but the learned Tribunal without taking into consideration of all the aspects 5 NNR,J MACMA No.70 of 2020 has awarded an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, which is meager and not awarded just and fair compensation and so also under other heads.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended there is no dispute with regard to accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner and liability on the respondents. Ex.A8- Discharge Summary and Ex.10- Orignal Essential Certificate issued by Renee Hospital, Karimnagar clearly shows that petitioner sustained the following injuries:
i) commuted Fracture lateral condoyle of Eaptullum of hummers with unstable dislocation of left elbow;
ii) MCL rupture of elbow fracture of left elbow;
iii) 2nd, 3rd and 4th carpmetacarpal fracture dislocation of left hand,
iv) Bennets fracture of left hand;
v) Compartment syndrome left hand;
vi) Pin palsy and other injuries.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earning, but the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/-
and also not awarded just compensation under other heads i.e., pain and sufferance, extra nourishment, transport charges, damage to clothing and article, loss of amenities, social status, shock and mental agony, and awarded Rs.1,10,000/- in total, which is meagre and prays this Court to enhance the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal.
6
NNR,J MACMA No.70 of 2020
11. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.
12. Heard Sri L.Sainath Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record.
13. Admittedly, respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents and occurrence of the accident. The only point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that:
i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent?
Point No.1
14. Admittedly, the petitioner got injured due to accident caused on 22.03.2016. At paragraph No.16 of the Tribunal order, petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards 'loss of earning' which appear to be fair and reasonable and the Tribunal granted the same, which needs no interference by this Court. The Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/- under the head of 'Transportation', which looks meager, as the petitioner had travelled to Karimnagar from Adilabad for better 7 NNR,J MACMA No.70 of 2020 treatment, as the petitioner might have incurred expenditure more than what claimed as the petitioner might have engaged auto or car for going to the hospital at Karimnagar, in such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation under head 'transportation' has to be enhance and the same is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-.
15. As per exhibit Ex.A.10- Original Essential certificate issued by Renee Hospital, Karimnagar, which shows that the petitioner has incurred Rs.81,630/- towards medical expenditure, but the Tribunal has not granted full expenditure because petitioner has not examined the Doctor, who treated him or the author of bills, inpatient bills and other medical bills and awarded Rs.50,000/- by the Tribunal under the 'head of medical expenditure, extra nourishment, tonics and private attendant', but looking the records, it shows that the petitioner was admitted in the Rennee Hospital, which is not disputed by either of the parties and the Discharge Summary, Emergency Certificate, Essentially Certificate and IP Bills and other medical bills issued by Renee Hospital, which clearly shows that petitioner has taken the medicines which was prescribed by the Renee Hospital where he was admitted, hence, the Tribunal ought to have considered the medical bills and granted just compensation under the head 'medical expenditure'. Accordingly, this 8 NNR,J MACMA No.70 of 2020 Court opines that it would be appropriate to grant Rs.81,630/- towards compensation under the head of 'medical expenditure, extra nourishment, tonics and private attendant'.
16. As per exhibits Ex.A3-Injury Certificate, petitioner suffered six injuries, as mentioned in the paragraph No.9 of this order, the Tribunal had granted Rs.25,000/- under the head 'pain and sufferance' which appears to be meager for six injuries. This Court enhance the compensation amount from Rs.25,000/- in all to Rs.10,000/- per injury i.e., Rs.60,000/- in all under the head 'pain and sufferance'.
17. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.75,000/- under the head of permanent disability and future medical expenditure but the petitioner has not filed any disability certificate, however the Tribunal granted Rs.25,000/- under the head of disability. In the absence of any disability certificate, this Court is not inclined to enhance the compensation already granted by the Tribunal under the head of 'permanent disability', hence no interference required.
18. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and as given in the table below for easy reference.
9 NNR,J MACMA No.70 of 2020 Amount arrived at by Amount arrived at by Head the Tribunal this Court Loss of earning Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- Transportation Charges Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/- Medical Bills Rs.50,000/- Rs.81,630/- Simple Injury Rs.25,000/- Rs.60,000/- Fracture Injury Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- (Permanent Disability) Total Rs.1,10,000/- Rs.1,81,630/-
19. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,10,000/- to Rs.1,81,630/- (Rupees One Lakh Eight One Thousand and Six Hundred and Thirty Rupees Only) with the interest of 7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. There shall be no order as to costs
20. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J 20.06.2025 SHA