Telangana High Court

Dudikatla Seetharamaiah Died vs D. Srinivas Redy And Another on 19 April, 2023

Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.3875 of 2009
JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the

order and decree dated 24.08.2009 in O.P.No.1743 of 2003 on the

file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional District

Judge) Khammam, for the injuries sustained by the appellant, who

has filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act, for

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- together with interest and costs.

Since the claimant died during the pendency of the appeal, his legal

representatives are brought on record as appellant Nos.2 and 3.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as

arrayed in the O.P.

3. On 19.11.2002, while the claimant, his wife and some other

passengers boarded the jeep, bearing registration No.AP-36-U-

3197 in order to go to Yellandu and when the jeep crossed Nehru

Nagar stage, a lorry tanker bearing registration No.AP-16-U-7439

driven in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed dashed against

the jeep of the claimant, due to which, four passengers died and the

GAC, J MACMA.No.3875 of 2009

appellant/claimant and others sustained grievous injuries and

immediately, the claimant was shifted to Singareni Collieries Main

Hospital, Kothagudem, where first aid was given and thereafter, he

was referred to Mamatha General Hospital, Khammam. Later,

claimant got himself admitted in Millitary Hospital, Secunderabad

and took treatment for 20 days as inpatient. Due to the head

injury, the claimant lost memory power and apart from that, he

sustained fracture of first to fourth ribs on left side and fracture of

first to third ribs on the right side causing breathing problems. As

per the advice of the doctor, as the claimant was aged about 47

years, it is very difficult to unite the fracture bones and there is no

possibility for conducting operation to fractured ribs. Thus, the

claimant underwent major traumas and permanent disability. The

claimant spent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical and

other expenses and he was advised to take treatment throughout his

life.

4. Basing on the complaint, a case was registered against the

driver of the lorry tanker vide Crime No.207 of 2002 for the

GAC, J MACMA.No.3875 of 2009

offence punishable under Sections 338 of IPC on the file of

Yellandu Police Station.

5. A detailed counter was filed by the 2nd respondent/Insurance

Company denying the age, occupation, income, medical

expenditure incurred and also the liability of the Insurance

Company. It is the specific plea of the Insurance Company that the

compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive and as such, the

Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

6. The Tribunal, on examining the oral and documentary

evidence on record, partly allowed the O.P., awarding a total

compensation of Rs.53,000/- along with costs and interest @ 7.5%

per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

Seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimant has filed this

appeal. As the appeal is with respect to quantum of compensation,

the appreciation of evidence would be with respect to it only.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Claimant contended

that the Tribunal has erred in granting less compensation and it

GAC, J MACMA.No.3875 of 2009

ought to have considered the head injury and fracture of rib bones

sustained by the claimant which made him permanently disable. It

is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have believed the

evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A-3 injury certificate and ought to have

considered that the claimant was working as security guard in

Singareni Collieries and was drawing the salary of Rs.9,000/- p.m.

and not Rs.3,000/-. Therefore, prayed to enhance the

compensation.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance

Company contended that there is no error or irregularity in the

orders passed by the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the O.P. was filed

by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- but the

Tribunal has granted a total compensation of Rs.53,000/- under the

heads stated above.

11. It is relevant to mention that the Tribunal has not considered

the injury certificate i.e. Ex.A-3, Ex.A-6/salary certificate and

Ex.A-7 loss of pay certificate. P.W.2 is the Doctor at Singareni

GAC, J MACMA.No.3875 of 2009

Collieries Main Hospital, who deposed that the claimant was

admitted in hospital on 19.11.2002 with head injury, fracture of 1st

and 4th ribs on left side, fracture of 1st and 3rd ribs on ride side and

was unconscious, as such he was referred to Osmania General

Hospital, Hyderabad. After taking treatment at Hyderabad, the

claimant was referred to Singareni Collieries Main Hospital. As

per the evidence of P.W.2, the claimant has sustained head injury

and also injuries on both sides of the ribs. As per Ex.A-8, the

claimant has spent an amount of Rs.169-57 ps at Singareni

Collieries Hospital on 20.11.2002. Though petitioner was advised

to take medicines, the cost of the same are not reflected in Ex.A-9.

Ex.A-10 discloses that the claimant was referred to Osmania

General Hospital and Ex.A-11 are the O.P. slips pertaining to

Osmania General Hospital on 04.12.2002 and 09.12.2002

respectively. Ex.A-12 corroborates with the evidence of P.W.2

with regard to petitioner suffering with head injury. Ex.A-13 is the

hospital record which shows the x-ray of the claimant, Exs.A-14

and A-15 are the CT scan reports which clearly reveal that the

petitioner has suffered multiple hypodensities. Neither the Doctor

GAC, J MACMA.No.3875 of 2009

nor any medical officer was examined to prove that the petitioner

was suffering with disability due to head injury. Ex.A-17 are the

cash receipts which disclose that the claimant has spent an amount

of Rs.2,800/- at Care hospital. Considering all the above evidence,

the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards

transportation, Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and

considered the income of the claimant as Rs.3,000/- awarded

Rs.18,000/- for 6 months towards loss of pay and total

compensation was arrived to Rs.53,000/- in total.

12. On perusal of the entire evidence, it is evident that the salary

certificate which was filed by the claimant was not considered by

the Tribunal. The salary certificate would show that the claimant

was earning gross salary of Rs.11,596-76/- and net salary of

Rs.8,872-46/- as on the date of accident, which can be rounded to

Rs.9,000/- for the purpose of calculation. Taking the salary of the

claimant as Rs.9,000/- p.m., loss of earnings of the claimant for a

period of one year comes to Rs.1,08,000/- (9,000 x 12). The

claimant is entitled for an amount Rs.8,000/- for each fracture

GAC, J MACMA.No.3875 of 2009

which comes to Rs.56,000/- (8,000 x7). Apart from that, the

claimant is also entitled for compensation under other heads.

14. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation under the

following heads:

1. Loss of earnings including Rs.1,08,000/-

disability

2. Medical expenses for fracture of Rs.56,000/-

ribs

3. Head injury Rs.10,000/-

3.         Pain and suffering                   Rs.25,000/-
3.         Transportation                       Rs.15,000/-
4.         Medical expenses                     Rs.10,000/-
5.         Extra-nourishment                    Rs.10,000/-
6.         Attendant charges                    Rs.10,000/-
           TOTAL                                Rs.2,44,000 /-

15. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.53,000/- to

Rs.2,44,000/-, with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from

the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by the

respondents jointly and severally to the legal representatives of the

claimant/appellant Nos.2 and 3 within two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. The appellant Nos.2 and 3 are

permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation, on

GAC, J MACMA.No.3875 of 2009

payment of deficit Court fee, as the accident occurred in the year

2002.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand