Telangana High Court
Nagavarapu Sateesh vs Puli Anand Kumar Another on 8 February, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN, J
MACMA NO.1956 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No. 1956 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation amount, aggrieved
by the decree and judgment dt.31.10.2011 passed in M.V.O.P
No.1233 of 2010 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-Cum-VIII Additional District Judge (FTC) Warangal.
2. This is a case of injury. The appellant claimed
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) and the Court below
passed an award for Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ten
Thousand Only).
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 14.04.2010, while the appellant was proceeding on
his bike bearing no. APAD4249 from Ramnagar to Kashibugga
and when he reached near police headquarters at 8:15 AM, one
auto trolley bearing No.AP36Y2878 came from the opposite
direction and dashed against the bike of the appellant as a result
of which, the appellant fell down and sustained multiple injuries.
The accident occurred due to negligent driving of an Auto-trolley.
2 RRN, J
MACMA NO.1956 of 2014
The petitioner took treatment in a Hospital and his right femur
was under POP for a prolonged period and he was also operated
for his fracture and he also underwent physiotherapy treatment
for improving from deformity and restricted muscular
movements. Due to the said accident, the appellant filed M.V.O.P
claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
4. In the Court below, learned counsel for the appellant
contended that the appellant suffered a lot of pain during the
course of treatment and even now his leg movements are
restricted and he is experiencing pain. Even after prolonged
treatment, there are no chances of complete recovery from
muscular deformity disfunction and suffered permanent
disability. The appellant passed M.Tech from Kakatiya Institute
of Technology and Science, Warangal and the accident occurred
during the period between his submission of his project work. He
was keeping good health prior to the date of the accident and
later secured employment on 06.10.2010 and he sustained a loss
of income for five months. The 1st respondent is the owner of the
Auto-trolley and the 2nd respondent is the insurer and both are
liable to pay compensation. Moreover, PS Hanamkonda registered
a case in Cr.No.91/T156/10 against the driver of the Trolley.
3 RRN, J
MACMA NO.1956 of 2014
5. In the Court below, the 1st respondent remained ex
parte. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement and
contended that there was collusion between the appellant and
the owner and there must be proof that both the appellant and
the auto trolley driver ought to have a valid and effective driving
license and further sought protection under Section 147, 149 and
170 of the M.V Act and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. Based on the submissions made on either side, the
court below framed issues. The appellant got himself examined
as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. The Court below heard
the matter at length and came to a conclusion that though the
appellant claimed to calculate the loss of income by calculating
his income an Assistant Professor at Rs.18,000/- p.m, the Court
below was inclined to fix the notional salary of the appellant to
Rs.10,000/- p.m as he was not employed immediately after
completion of M.Tech. Since the salary for the purpose of loss of
income was fixed at the amount stated above for (05) months, he
was entitled for Rs.10,000/- x 5 = Rs.50,000/- under that head.
The Court below was further inclined to grant Rs.20,000/-
towards the fracture injury which was operated upon and as per
Ex.A7 as the appellant requires surgery for removal of the
4 RRN, J
MACMA NO.1956 of 2014
implant, he was granted Rs.15,000/-. The Court below further
granted an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment,
Rs.2,000/- towards transport to hospital and Rs.15,000/-
towards pain and suffering. Thus a total compensation of
Rs.1,15,000/- was awarded to the appellant with an interest of
7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
7. Heard both sides. Both counsels reiterated their
contentions which were placed before the Court below.
8. Considering the arguments advanced and the facts
thereof, this court is of the view that the aspect of loss of income,
amount towards fracture injury which was operated and travel
expenses was rightly dealt with by the Court below, hence the
same is kept intact at Rs.50,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2,000/-
respectively. However, the pain and suffering of the appellant
could be up to the removal of the interlocking nail and which
would mean that the appellant would undergo further pain and
suffering and under the pain and suffering head, the Court below
granted only Rs. 15,000/- but it can be enhanced by Rs.18,000/-
, which totals to Rs.15,000/ + Rs.18,000/- = Rs. 33,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Three Thousand Only). For future surgery and
5 RRN, J
MACMA NO.1956 of 2014
removal of implant, the Court below granted Rs.15,000/-,
however, this Court feels it is not reasonable in view of the rising
charges of the Hospitals as of today. In view of future surgery the
amount awarded of Rs.15,000/- can be enhanced by Rs.18,000/-
which totals to Rs.15,000/ + Rs.18,000/- = Rs. 33,000/-(Rupees
Thirty Three Thousand Only) and under the head of extra
nourishments also, it is reasonable to enhance the amount of
Rs.3,000/- by an addition of Rs.4,000/- which totals to
Rs.3,000/- + Rs.4,000/- = Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand
Only).
9. Hence, the total enhanced amount would sum up to
Rs.50,000/- (Loss of Income) + Rs.20,000/- (Operation for
fracture) + Rs.33,000/- (Enhanced amount towards pain and
suffering) + Rs. 33,000/- Enhanced amount towards future
surgery) + Rs.7,000/- (Enhanced amount towards extra
nourishment) + Rs.2,000/- (Travel expenses)
= Total Rs.1,45,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Five Thousand
Only). This Court is of the view that the interest rate of 7.5% p.a
fixed by the Court below is justified.
6 RRN, J
MACMA NO.1956 of 2014
10. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed by
enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.1,10,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Ten Thousand Only) to Rs.1,45,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh Forty Five Thousand Only) with an interest of 7.5 %
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. No order
as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any
pending, shall stand closed.
____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
8th day of February, 2023
BDR
