Telangana High Court
P Shantipal Reddy, Hyderabad vs The Apsrtc, Rep By Its Rm, ... on 8 February, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA NO.1444 of 2016 & 703 OF 2015
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A No.1444 OF 2016
&
M.A.C.M.A No.703 OF 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Both these Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeals
are being disposed of by way of this common judgment as both these
appeals are directed against the award dt.21.11.2014 in M.V.O.P
No.472 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-
cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (Hereinafter referred to
as 'the Tribunal').
2. In M.A.C.M.A No.1444 of 2016 the Appellant/Claimant had
challenged the award dt.21.11.2014 in M.V.O.P No.472 of 2012 with
regard to the quantum of compensation and prayed to enhance the
same and in M.A.C.M.A No.703 OF 2016, the Respondent/RTC had
challenged the award dt.21.11.2014 in M.V.O.P No.472 of 2012 by
contending that the Tribunal failed to consider the contributory
negligence, leading to the accident; and prayed to the set-aside the
same.
2 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA NO.1444 of 2016 & 703 OF 2015
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts in M.A.C.M.A
No.1444 of 2016 are discussed hereunder and the parties are
hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.11.2011 at about 2.30
p.m., the petitioner along with her son was proceeding in a car bearing
No.AP-29AP-5509 from Hyderabad to Nizamabad and when they
reached Chegunta bypass road on NH-44, the RTC bus bearing No.
AP-29Z-0219 came from Nizamabad side and while overtaking another
vehicle, came in wrong side in a rash and negligent manner at a high
speed and dashed against the car, as a result, the petitioner received
grievous injuries and she was immediately shifted to Apollo Hospitals.
On a complaint, the police Chegunta registered a case in Cr.No.162 of
2011 under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of the bus. The
petitioner was hale and healthy and aged about 34 years prior to the
accident and she was a director at M/s. Guru Gowri Krupa
Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and getting a monthly
salary of Rs.1 Lakh apart from benefits and in spite of taking
treatment, she is not cured completely and suffers from limping while
walking and also, she is unable to sit and squat properly and thereby
suffering from disability and hence lost income. As such, the
petitioner filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of
Rs.30 Lakhs under different heads.
3 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA NO.1444 of 2016 & 703 OF 2015
5. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and
Exhibits Ex.A1 to A16 were marked. No evidence either oral or
documentary was adduced by the respondents.
6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues
and allowed the claim petition in part granting a sum of
Rs.11,74,247/-. Against the same, the present appeal is filed for
enhancement of compensation.
7. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had
contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre amount as
compensation and prayed to allow the appeal. On the other hand, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that the
Tribunal failed to consider that there was contributory negligence on
the part of the driver of the car in which the petitioner was travelling.
However, a careful perusal of the observations of the Tribunal would
reveal that the respondents failed to adduce any evidence in proof of
their contentions and the Tribunal was justified in holding that the
driver of the bus of the respondents is liable for the accident.
9. However, a perusal of the impugned award goes to show
that the Tribunal erred in not awarding just compensation to the
petitioner despite the petitioner adduced sufficient evidence. Hence,
4 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA NO.1444 of 2016 & 703 OF 2015
this Court is inclined to enhance the awarded amount in certain
heads. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards
transport charges which is meagre. Accordingly, it is enhanced to
Rs.5,000/-. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards
extra nourishment, the same is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. The Tribunal
ignored the aspect of pain and suffering. Due to the accident, there is
no doubt that the petitioner underwent pain and suffering, but the
Tribunal failed to award compensation under this head. As such, the
petitioner is entitled to Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain and
suffering.
10. The petitioner also claimed attendant charges of
Rs.50,000/- but the Tribunal did not consider the same. Hence, the
petitioner is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges. The
petitioner was awarded future medical expenses at Rs.65,000/-. The
counsel appearing for the respondents stated that the future medical
expenses can be reimbursed by the medical Insurance Company.
However, this Court finds that the total amount cannot be reimbursed
and as such, this court is inclined to enhance the amount from
Rs.65,000 to Rs.85,000/-. Rest of the compensation is rightly awarded
by the Tribunal. The interest at 7.5% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal
needs no interference.
5 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA NO.1444 of 2016 & 703 OF 2015
11. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to the following :
Amount awarded by the Enhancement made by the
Tribunal High Court
Transport charges 2,000/- 5,000/-
Extra nourishment 2,000/- 5,000/-
Medical Expenses 3,40,247/- 3,40,247/-
Future medical 65,000/- 85,000/-
expenditure
Loss of earning 6,00,000/- 6,00,000/-
during treatment
period
Future loss of 1,50,000/-
earning 1,50,000/-
Medical Tests 15,000/-
15,000/-
Pain and suffering --
50,000/-
Attendant charges --
10,000/-
Rs.11,74,247/- Rs.12,60,247/-
12. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to the enhanced
compensation of Rs.12,60,247/- as against the awarded amount of
Rs.11,74,247/-.
13. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A No. 1444 of 2016 is partly allowed,
enhancing the compensation from Rs.11,74,247/- to Rs.12,60,247/-
(Rupees Twelve Lakh, Sixty Thousand, Two hundred and forty seven
only) along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Rest of the operative
portion of the order of the Tribunal holds good. There shall be no order
as to costs.
6 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA NO.1444 of 2016 & 703 OF 2015
M.A.C.M.A NO. 703 OF 2015
In view of the findings in M.A.C.M.A No. 1444 of 2016, this
M.A.C.M.A No. 703 of 2016 is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A No. 703 of 2016 dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
_______________________________________
NAMAVARAPUR RAJESHWAR RAO, J
8th day of February, 2023.
BDR
