Telangana High Court
Deepak Kumar Modi vs Mohd.Abdul Razak on 27 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1448 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V. Krishna Rao, learned standing counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company and perused the record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/claimant aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.1068 of 2018,dated 19.04.2023.
3. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- payable by the respondents jointly and severally. The appellant met with an accident on 31.03.2018 at 18.00 hours when he was proceeding on his Activa bike bearing No.AP-09-TV-4001 from Basheerbagh to Mata Mandir. When the appellant reached the Office of Commissioner of Police at Basheerbagh, one Mahendra Verito car bearing No.TS-07-UC-3425 was driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1 and thereby, dashed the Activa bike of the appellant resulting in grievous injuries and fractures.
2
4. The learned Tribunal examined the evidence adduced by the appellant and respondents and awarded compensation of Rs.19,000/- with interest 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
5. In grounds of appeal, the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal failed to consider Ex.A5 original discharge summary issued by the Apollo hospital, Hyderguda and the oral evidence of PW2 treated doctor who deposed that the appellant was admitted under his care through emergency service in Apollo hospital on 31.03.2018 and was treated on 03.04.2018 by conducting surgery for open reduction and internal fixation using plates and screws. PW2 further deposed that the appellant needs follow up surgery for removal of implants. Said oral evidence of PW2 and Ex.A5 are not taken into consideration. As per Ex.A6, the appellant paid an amount of Rs.2,20,790/- and the same is deposed by the Billing In-charge of Apollo hospital, Hyderguda. The learned Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of PW3 on the ground that as per injury certificate, the appellant sustained only simple injuries and the charge sheet is filed under section 337 of IPC.
3
6. A perusal of the record shows that the witness PW2 i.e. Dr. Hari Sharma, Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon at Apollo hospital, Hyderguda who was working since May, 2011 at Apollo hospital, Hyderguda has deposed that the appellant was treated under his care having admitted through emergency services of the hospital on 31.03.2018. The appellant sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 31.03.2018 at 6.00 pm at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. PW2 further deposed that the appellant underwent surgery on 03.04.2018 for open reduction and internal fixation using plates and screws. When the appellant was normal and in stable condition, he was discharged on 06.04.2018. PW2 also deposed that the appellant requires future surgery which may cost approximately Rs.1,00,000/- Ex.A5 discharge summary is issued by Apollo hospital.
7. Coming to the documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal relied upon Ex.A2, injury certificate issued by Apollo hospital which shows that the appellant when he was admitted had tenderness and pain over left thigh and deformation over proximal aspect of left leg with tenderness and swelling. Whereas, the discharge summary/Ex.A5 issued by the same Apollo hospital shows that the appellant sustained fracture of Tibia orif, was admitted 4 on 31.03.2018 and was discharged on 06.04.2018 and that surgery was conducted on the appellant for fracture of Tibia on 03.04.2018.
8. When confronted with two different documents, one document shows simple injuries and the other document shows grievous injuries such as fracture of Tibia clarification is to be given by the treated doctor. The treated doctor PW2 has categorically deposed that the appellant sustained fracture in a road traffic accident. The date of accident, treatment period and the evidence of the treated doctor clearly go to show that the appellant sustained grievous injury. The entries made by either the doctor or the staff of casualty ward of the hospital without conducting further examination need not be a ground for denying just compensation to the appellant irrespective of the fact that Ex.A2 shows that simple injuries. The discharge summary/Ex.A5 and the oral evidence of PW2 inspire confidence that the appellant sustained grievous injury in the accident. Normally, fractures without external injury show tenderness or swelling only and when X-ray is taken, the fractures are revealed. Sometimes, hairline fracture cannot be detected unless X-ray is taken. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.3 that the appellant sustained only simple injuries and reasonable amount is awarded is not sustainable in 5 face of creditable evidence adduced by the appellant through PW2/ Dr. Hari Sharma and Ex.A5/discharge summary.
9. In the circumstances, on the basis of oral evidence of PW2 and Ex.A5, it is proven that the appellant sustained grievous injury. As such, entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards simple injury, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and entitled to payment of the final bill under Ex.A6 at Rs.2,20,790/-.
10. As per Ex.A3 charge sheet, the appellant was aged 53 years and was doing own business. In the absence of lack of evidence, the notional income of the appellant is taken to be Rs.12,000/- per month as he was self-employed and an amount of Rs.60,000/- is awarded towards loss of earnings for five (5) months of time that might have been taken for healing of the fracture and resuming normal work. In addition, the appellant is awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards future surgery required for removal of implants. Thus, the appellant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,80,790/-.
11. In so far as interest is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of 6 realization. This Court by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 1, inclined to increase the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal to 7.5% per annum on entire compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of realization.
12. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.19,000/- to Rs.3,80,790/-, which shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing the security.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date:27.06.2025 gvl 1 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 7 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.1448 of 2023 27th June, 2025 gvl