Telangana High Court
Inavolu V.V.L.N.Shekar Rao vs Mumanoni Ravi And Anr on 10 November, 2023
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
M.A.C.M.A.No.3916 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed against the Order dated 28.12.2006 in
O.P.No.382 of 2003 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal (I - Additional District Judge),
Khammam.
2. O.P.No.382 of 2003 was filed by the appellant/petitioner,
claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries
sustained by him in the road traffic accident occurred on
10.08.2003. By Order dated 18.01.2005 in I.A.No.2061 of 2003,
the Surname of respondent No.1 was amended. The
appellant/petitioner was examined himself as P.W.1 and also
got examined P.W.2 on his behalf and marked Exs.A1 to A7 and
also Ex.X1. The insurance Company did not adduce any
evidence, but filed a copy of the insurance policy and it was
marked as Ex.B1. The trial Court after considering the entire
evidence on record, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the
said Judgment, petitioner therein preferred the present appeal.
3. The trial Court observed that accident was occurred on
10.08.2002. Ex.A1 is the true copy of the F.I.R given by
M.R.O.Cherla and it was presented on 10.09.2002. Ex.A2 is the
certified copy of the charge sheet. As per the evidence of P.W.1,
P.S.Cherla was situated at a distance of 10-11 kms to the place
of accident and that he took first aid at the hospital at
Kothagudem and then he joined in N.I.M.S on the next day. He
stated that his parents and younger brother were residing at
Cherla, but they did not give any report to the police. The trial
Court observed that he ought to have given complaint
immediately in the Panjagutta Police Station which was at a
distance of one Kilometer to the N.I.M.S Hospital and the delay
in filing F.I.R clearly shows that there was implication of the
crime vehicle and accordingly held that petitioner failed to
establish the involvement of the scooter and in fact he could not
establish that he sustained injuries in the accident and
accordingly dismissed the O.P. Against the said Order,
petitioner therein preferred the present appeal.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner mainly
contended that N.I.M.S hospital might have informed to the
concerned Police Station immediately after the accident, but
they failed to do so. Moreover, respondent No.1 remained
exparte and never came forward and contested the matter
saying that his vehicle was not involved in the accident. It was
also contended that the trial Court ought to have noted that
Exs.A2 to A7 are sufficient to prove the accident in the absence
any contra evidence and hence requested the Court to set aside
the Order of the trial Court.
5. As per the evidence on record, P.W.1 sustained crush
injury to his left leg and it was amputated below the knee and
he was in hospital for 23 days, as such he could not give
complaint immediately after the accident, his family members
were also illiterates and have no knowledge to give complaint, as
such mere filing of the F.I.R one month after the accident
cannot be considered as negligence of the appellant/petitioner.
The trial Court erred in arriving to the conclusion that
appellant/petitioner failed to establish the accident and also the
involvement of respondent No.1. The said conclusion of the trial
Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside.
6. Admittedly, the appellant/petitioner met with an accident
on 10.08.2002. In support of his contention, he filed Ex.A1
certified copy of the F.I.R in Cr.No.62 of 2002 of P.S.Cherla and
after investigation police have filed Charge sheet under Ex.A2,
as such he proved the accident. As the respondent No.1
remained exparte, the involvement of the crime vehicle is not
disputed. So also, negligence of the rider of the crime vehicle
i.e., respondent No.1 is also not disputed. Ex.A3 is the certified
copy of the injuries certificate. He was admitted in N.I.M.S
Hospital on 11.08.2002 and discharged on 02.09.2002 and
Ex.A4 is the disability certificate.
7. P.W.2 in his evidence stated that he was working in
N.I.M.S Hospital and the appellant/petitioner suffered fracture
of both the bones of left leg. The appellant/petitioner was
operated by three doctors for vascular surgery and that bones
were fixed and blood vessels were repaired. As there was no
improvement, an operation was conducted and left leg below the
knee was amputated on 25.08.2002 and they have also issued
Exs.A3 and A7. Ex.A5 comprises the X-ray film. Ex.X1 is the
Xerox copy of the case sheet. Ex.A4 is the disability certificate
issued by the Government Hospital, Khammam on 02.03.2005
and they assessed the disability as 60%, but the trial Court
observed that since the leg below knee was amputated, the
disability can be fixed at 40%. Ex.A6 comprises prescriptions
and Ex.A7 comprises medical bills for a sum of Rs.36,163/-.
8. The appellant/petitioner was running a cycle store at
Cherla and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. This Court
finds that it is just and reasonable to take the income of the
appellant/petitioner as Rs.5,000/- per month and thus his
annual income would be Rs.60,000/-. As the age of the
appellant was 36 years as on the date of accident, the multiplier
is 15 and as there is amputation of leg, 40% of disability is to be
taken. Therefore, a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.60,000 x 15 x 40%
= Rs.3,60,000/-) is awarded towards disability.
9. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the
appellant/petitioner, this Court finds that it is just and
reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and
suffering. Apart from that he is also entitled for Rs.20,000/-
towards loss of amenities, Rs.15,000/- for transportation,
Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.15,000/- towards
attendant charges and Rs.50,000/- for medical expenses.
10. Therefore, the appellant/petitioner is entitled for the
compensation in the following terms:
1. Pain and Suffering Rs.40,000/-
2. Loss of Amenities Rs.20,000/-
3. Transportation Charges Rs.15,000/-
4. Extra nourishment Rs.15,000/-
5. Medical expenses Rs.50,000/-
6. Disability @ 40% Rs.3,60,000/-
TOTAL Rs.5,00,000/-
11. In the result, this appeal is allowed, setting aside the
Order of the trial Court dated 28.12.2006 in O.P.No.382 of 2003
and granted compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh
only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date
of filing the petition till the date of realization. Though,
respondents No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation, respondent No.2/Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of
one month from the date of this Judgment. On such
deposit, appellant is permitted to withdraw the said
amount along with the interest accrued on it and the
appellant is also directed to pay the deficit Court fee on
the excess amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 10.11.2023
tri
