Telangana High Court

Maram Abhinav Reddy , Ranipal ... vs Mohd Nusrath, Hyderabad And Anr on 31 October, 2023

Bench: K.Lakshman, K. Sujana

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
                            AND
             THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

             M.A.C.M.A.Nos.889 AND 1643 OF 2015

COMMON JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble Smt Justice K.Sujana)

      Feeling      aggrieved        by    the   order   and   decree    dated

13.01.2015 in O.P.No.297 of 2011 passed by the VIII Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar,

the   Reliance      General         Insurance      Company      Ltd.,     filed

M.A.C.M.A.No.889 of 2015, challenging the liability and also the

quantum of compensation. The appellant/petitioner/claimant in

the said O.P., filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1643 of 2015 seeking

enhancement of the compensation.


2.    For    the     sake      of        convenience,   the   appellant     in

M.A.C.M.A.No.889 of 2015 is referred to as 'Insurance Company

and the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.1643 of 2015 is referred to

as 'Claimant'.


3.    The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., filed

M.A.C.M.A.No.889 of 2015 contending that the court below

erred in holding that the appellant company is liable to pay

compensation of Rs.2,03,351/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a.                     As

can be seen, the accident occurred due to the contributory
                                                         KL,J &SKS,J
                                                     Macmas_889 & 1643_2015



                                   2


negligence of the driver of the Mini bus bearing No.AP 9V 9670

and also the driver of Innova Car bearing No.AP 9 BX 324, as

such      the   court   below   ought   to   have   apportioned       the

compensation.       It is further contended that the court below

grossly    erred in awarding Rs.1,00,351/- towards expenditure

for hospitalization, medicines, tests etc, whereas as per clause 4

(ii) of the 2nd schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the

claimant is entitled to only Rs.15,000/- and also erred in

awarding Rs.75,000/- for pain and suffering on account of three

grievous injuries, in fact, the claimant is entitled for Rs.5000/-

for each injury and also disputed the interest awarded @ 7.5%

p.a.   As such prayed the Court to set aside the order of the

court below.


4.     On the other hand, M.A.C.M.A.No.1643 of 2015 is filed by

the claimant contending that the court below erroneously

granted only Rs.2,03,351/- instead of Rs.5,00,000/- as claimed

by the claimant and he is entitled for higher amounts towards

hospitalization medicines and tests etc. Therefore, prayed the

Court to enhance the compensation.


5.     Heard Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel appearing for

the Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd., and Sri Putta Krishna

Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the claimant.
                                                     KL,J &SKS,J
                                                 Macmas_889 & 1643_2015



                                 3


6.       Learned counsel for the claimant would submit that due

to the injuries received in the accident, petitioner/claimant

suffered lot of mental agony and also spent lot of amount in

hospitals, but without observing the same, the court below

awarded only Rs.2,03,351/-. Therefore, prayed the Court to

enhance the compensation from Rs.2,03,351/- to Rs.5,00,000/-


7.       Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance

Company would submit that there is contributory negligence on

the part of driver of the Innova Car also and without observing

the same, the court below wrongly put the liability on the driver

of Mini bus only, which is contrary to the evidence.        He also

relied on the judgment of the High Court of A.P., in Agnuru

Jaya Ramulu Vs Mohammed Afzal Miyan and another 1 and

prayed the Court to reduce the compensation amount awarded

by the court below and also to apportion the liability between

the driver of Mini bus and driver of the Innova car.


8.       The facts of the case in the petition are that while the

petitioner/claimant was proceeding from Penimella Village to

Hyderabad along with his family members in an Innova car

bearing No.AP 09 BX 324, when they reached Debbaguda gate,


1
    2006 ACJ 855
                                                    KL,J &SKS,J
                                                Macmas_889 & 1643_2015



                               4


Kandukur near a culvert, one Mini Bus bearing No.AP 9V 9670

proceeding towards Srisailam side came in an opposite direction

at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the

Innova Car, due to which, the claimant had sustained grievous

injuries.   Immediately, he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital,

Hyderabad wherein, he underwent surgeries and is still

undergoing treatment.    The petitioner was minor at the time of

filing of the O.P. Hence, he was represented by his natural

guardian i.e., mother.


9.    In the said O.P., the driver of the Mini bus was set ex

parte and the Insurance Company filed counter stating that the

alleged accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of

the driver of Innova Car bearing No.AP 9 BX 324. As such, the

claim is not maintainable, as the driver of Innova Car was not

made as a party. It is also contended that the Mini bus is not

insured with the company and policy was not in existence on

the date of accident; the driver of the Mini bus was not having

valid driving license and though the owner of Mini bus had

knowledge about the said fact, he entrusted the vehicle to him

in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and

therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the
                                                      KL,J &SKS,J
                                                  Macmas_889 & 1643_2015



                                 5


compensation and prayed the Court to dismiss the O.P., against

the Insurance Company.


10.   With regard to the accident, a case in Cr.No.184 of 2010

was registered under Section 304-A and 337 of the IPC in

Kandukur Police Station against the driver of Mini bus.


11.   To prove the claim, the mother of the appellant/claimant

was examined as Pw.1 and Pw.2-Dr.B.Mahender Reddy, and

Exs.A.1 to A.7 are marked. Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of the

FIR, Ex.A.2- certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.3-certified copy

of the scene of offence panchanama, Ex.A.4-certified copy of the

MLC report, Ex.A.5-discharge summary showing that the

claimant sustained injuries in the said accident, Ex.A.6-final bill

issued by Yashoda Hospital and Ex.A.7-Medical bill.       On behalf

of the Insurance Company, one Syed Rehmathullah, Senior

Executive of the Insurance Company was examined as Rw.1 and

Ex.B.1-Policy was marked.


12.   Basing on the evidence on record, the court below opined

that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the

driver of the Mini bus. Against the said decision, the Insurance

Company filed M.A.C.M.A.No.889 of 2015 contending that there
                                                      KL,J &SKS,J
                                                  Macmas_889 & 1643_2015



                                 6


is contributory negligence on the part of driver of the Innova

Car.


13.    Now, the points for consideration are :


1.

Whether the accident occurred on 07.11.2010 due to the contributory negligence of the driver of the Mini bus and driver of the Innova car ?

2. Whether, the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for ?

POINT NO.1 :

14. On going through the documents filed by the claimant,

Ex.A.1 FIR is issued immediately after the accident and Ex.A.2

charge sheet, which is filed after due investigation, it is evident

that the driver of the Mini bus is responsible for the accident.

Ex.A.3 scene of offence panchanama also shows that accident

occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Mini bus.

Though summons were served on the driver of the Mini bus, he

has not contested the claim and not denied the manner in

which the accident occurred. There is no dispute with regard to

occurrence of accident and the injuries received by the

claimant, whereas, the Insurance Company disputed the

liability and claim contending that there is contributory

negligence, whereas, the evidence on record clearly shows that

the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of Mini KL,J &SKS,J Macmas_889 & 1643_2015

bus. The Insurance Company relied on the judgment in Agnuru

Jaya Ramulu's case, wherein the date of accident itself was in

dispute though the accident occurred on the intervening night

of 12/13.7.1997, the medical officer evidence would show that

the accident occurred on the intervening night of 11/12.7.1997.

Therefore, the Court came to the conclusion that the documents

filed by the claimants are not reliable. As such, the appeal was

decided stating that there is contributory negligence on the part

of claimant also. Whereas, in the present case, the documents

filed by the claimant clearly proves that the accident occurred

due to the negligent driving of the driver of Mini bus. As such,

the observation made in the above judgment is not applicable to

this case. Apart from that the Insurance Company failed to

examine any eye witness on their behalf to prove the negligence

of driver of Innova Car, whereas Pw.1 is one of the injured and

eye witness deposed about the manner in which the accident

occurred. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the

Insurance Company that accident occurred due to the

contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers. As

such, the issue is decided in favour of the claimant and against

the Insurance Company. Accordingly, this point is answered.

KL,J &SKS,J Macmas_889 & 1643_2015

POINT NO.2 :

15. Basing on the documents filed by the claimant and the

evidence of Pw.2-Dr B.Mahender Reddy, the court below

awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards pain and suffering,

Rs.15,000/- towards better nutrition, Rs.10,000/- towards

conveyance and attendant charges and Rs.1,00,351/- towards

expenditure for hospitalization, medicines and tests etc., and

Rs.3000/- towards damage to clothing.

16. As seen from the record and the evidence of Pw.2, the

claimant was admitted in hospital on 07.11.2010 with history of

being involved in a road accident. He sustained bilateral

contusions temporal right hemorrhagic parietal contusions,

pelvis fracture right eschemia, right sacral and anterial wall of

acetabelum. He was treated conservatively and was discharged

on 20.11.2010. He was also seen by the Neuro surgeon and an

orthopaedic surgeon and all the injuries are grievous in nature.

17. As petitioner/claimant was minor on the date of accident

and he suffered three grievous injuries, he is entitled for

Rs.75,000/- towards pain and suffering. He is also entitled for

an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities as he being

a minor. He is also entitled for an amount of Rs.25,000/-

KL,J &SKS,J Macmas_889 & 1643_2015

towards transportation and extra-nourishment as he was in

hospital, for almost 15 days. The claimant is also entitled for an

amount of Rs.5000/- towards damage to clothing. The claimant

is also entitled for Rs.1,00,351/- towards medical expenses and

further amount of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation charges, in

view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sidram Vs Divisional

Manager, United India Insurance Co., Ltd and another 2 and

Sriram General Insurance Vs Bhagat Singh Rawat in SLP (C)

Nos.11669-11671/202. Hence, the total compensation the

claimant entitled to is Rs.3,05,351/-.

18. Thus, in all the claimant is entitled to Rs.3,05,351/- as

compensation under the following heads :

Pain & Suffering                      :     Rs. 75,000/-

Loss of amenities                     :     Rs.50,000/-

Transportation & extra-nourishment :        Rs.25,000/-

Medical expenses                      :     Rs.1,00,351/-

Litigation charges                    :     Rs.50,000/-

Damage to clothes                     :     Rs.5000/-

                                           ___________________
                Total                 :      Rs.3,05,351/-
                                            ___________________

The said amount is rounded off to Rs.3,05,360/-

2022 Livelaw (SC) 968 KL,J &SKS,J Macmas_889 & 1643_2015

19. As far as the issue of rate of interest is concerned, the

Insurance Company submitted that 7.5% per annum interest is

high, but 6% is reasonable interest. Whereas, the Apex Court in

Sonal Gupta and another Vs United India Insurance Co.,

Ltd. and another 3, in paragraph No.31 it was observed as

under :

"31. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 7.5 per cent in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., V Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has held as under :

"(13) The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the claimants as regards the rate of interest. The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5 per cent per annum and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court."