Telangana High Court
Angari Rajalingam vs Ssjanardhan on 5 January, 2023
Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.3821 of 2008
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is arising out of the orders in O.P.No.1000 of
2008, dated 19.12.2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
arrayed in the O.P.
3. The appellant is the claimant. The O.P. was filed by the
claimant under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the injuries
sustained by the claimant in the accident, which occurred on
27.10.2002 at 11.00 a.m. The said accident occurred, while the
claimant was travelling in an Auto bearing No.AP-25-T-9925 and
when it reached in front of Balaji Petrol pump, the driver of the
Auto drove it at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner,
dashed against a person named, Sailoo, and as a result, the said
person and also the inmates of the Auto including the claimant
sustained injuries and fractures. The claimant sustained fractures
GAC, J
MACMA.No.3821 of 2008
to the right thigh, right wrist bone, injuries on left knee and
grievous injuries to various parts of his body.
4. Basing on the complaint of one Mohd. Mukram, a case was
registered against the driver of the Auto in Crime No.209 of 2002
for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC on the file of
Armoor Police Station. The claimant incurred huge amounts for
his medical treatment, other expenses, also sustained permanent
disability and lost his earning capacity. At the time of accident, the
claimant was cultivating the lands, doing vegetable business,
earned Rs.8,000/- per month and was aged about 28 years.
5. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the
respondent/Insurance Company disputing the age, income,
occupation and also the medical expenditure incurred by the
claimant. Further, it was contended that there was no negligence
on the part of the driver of the Auto.
6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence on record, granted a compensation of Rs.40,000/-.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.3821 of 2008
7. Being aggrieved as to the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement
of compensation. So, the appreciation of evidence would be with
respect to the quantum alone.
8. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimant that
the Tribunal has erred in not considering the income of the
claimant as Rs.8,000/- per month and also did not consider the
disability and therefore prayed to consider the income and
disability while granting compensation and also to grant
compensation under the other notional heads.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company contended that there is no error or
irregularity in the orders passed by the Tribunal so as to interfere
with the same, and therefore, prayed to dismiss the Appeal by
confirming the judgment of the Tribunal.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.3821 of 2008
11. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no
dispute as to the manner of the accident which occurred on
27.10.2002. Admittedly, the age of the claimant as on the date of
the accident was 28 years as per Ex.A-2/Medical Certificate.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramachandrappa
v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd1., taken the
income of the deceased/coolie, as Rs.4,500/- per month. Though it
is contended that the claimant was a vegetable vendor and was
doing cultivation as on the date of the accident, there is no
documentary evidence on record to prove the occupation of the
claimant as aforesaid. Further, the Tribunal did not consider the
income of the deceased but granted the compensation in lumpsum.
Considering the above said proposition, the income of the claimant
can be fixed as Rs.4,500/- per month for the accident which
occurred in the year 2002.
13. As per the oral evidence of the Doctor/P.W.2 and
documentary evidence i.e. Ex.A-2/Medical Certificate, the
claimant sustained the following injuries:
(2011) 13 SCC 236
GAC, J
MACMA.No.3821 of 2008
"1. Pain and swelling left thigh corresponding X-ray
revealed fracture of left femur.
2. Pain and swelling right wrist X-ray shows fracture of
scaphoid bone.
3. Four x two cm abrasion left knee.
4. Contusion left side of chest."
14. Admittedly, the evidence of PW-2/Doctor is silent about the
permanent disability sustained by the claimant and no documentary
evidence is produced to that effect.
15. It is relevant to note that the Tribunal has awarded
compensation to the claimant under the following heads:-
1. Two grievous injuries : Rs.10,000/-
2. Two simple injuries : Rs.2,000/-
3. Medical expenses : Rs.10,000/-
4. Pain and suffering : Rs.10,000/-
5. Loss of earnings for 5 months: Rs.7,500/-
7. Transport & extra-nourishment: Rs.500/-
Total : Rs.40,000/-
16. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment
in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Visakhapatnam v.
Korukonda Appa Rao & another2, wherein, it is held at para 9 as
under:
2010 (6) ALD 566
GAC, J
MACMA.No.3821 of 2008
"I shall in the first instance deal with the question whether
the Tribunal erred in granting compensation to the injured
claimants despite the fact that they did not examine the
doctor who treated them for the injuries. It is the
contention of the appellant/insurance company that in the
absence of evidence of doctor, it is not possible for the
Tribunal to grant any compensation to the injured. It may
be stated that in all the cases, the compensation was
awarded only to the simple and grievous injuries, but not
in respect of any permanent disability. The proceedings
under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in
nature and the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial
legislation intended to provide just and reasonable
compensation to the victims of the motor vehicle
accidents to the extent possible, and the provisions have to
be construed in favour of the claimants. Further, the
injured-claimants filed copies of injury certificates which
are marked as Ex. A-2. The said documents indicate the
injuries sustained by the claimants and they were marked
without any objection from the appellant-insurance
company. This apart, there is oral testimony of the
injured-claimants in regard to the injuries sustained by
them. There is no absolute proposition of law to the effect
that in the absence of the evidence of the doctor, the
Tribunal cannot award any compensation, more
particularly, when the injury certificates were brought on
record. I am of the considered view that it is well within
the competence of the Tribunal to award just and
reasonable compensation basing on the oral evidence of
the claimants and the injury certificates brought on record
by them. Therefore, this point is answered against the
insurance company."
17. Considering the aforesaid proposition, this Court is of the
considered view that the claimant is entitled for more
compensation than awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant is
entitled for Rs.8,000/- for each grievous injury and Rs.3,000/- for
GAC, J
MACMA.No.3821 of 2008
each simple injury. Further, the claimant is also entitled for an
amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering as he sustained
two fractures as per Ex.A-2/medical certificate. Though it is
contended by the learned counsel for claimant that the claimant
incurred Rs.70,000/- towards medical expenses, as there is no
documentary evidence on record to that effect, he is entitled only
for an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses,
considering the evidence of PW-1 that he underwent treatment in a
private hospital i.e. Amrutha Lakshmi hospital, Nizamabad,
immediately after the accident. As per the evidence of PWs.1 and
2, the claimant suffered loss of earnings for a period of two months
due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, therefore, he is
entitled for an amount of Rs.9,000/- (Rs.4,500/- X 2). Further, the
claimant is also entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards transportation,
attendant charges and extra-nourishment.
18. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation as under:
1. Two grievous injuries : Rs.16,000/-
2. Two simple injuries : Rs.6,000/-
3. Medical expenses : Rs.25,000/-
4. Pain and suffering : Rs.25,000/-
GAC, J
MACMA.No.3821 of 2008
5. Loss of earnings for 2 months: Rs.9,000/-
6. Transport & extra-nourishment
and attendant charges : Rs.10,000/-
Total : Rs.91,000/-
19. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, granting a total
compensation of Rs.91,000/- to the claimant with costs and interest
at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date
of realization, jointly and severally payable by respondent Nos.1
and 2 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of
compensation, as the accident occurred in the year 2002.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________________
G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Date: 05.01.2023
ajr
