Telangana High Court

Bantu Sai Sandeep vs J.Anjaneyulu on 6 September, 2023

Bench: G.Radha Rani

     THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

                       M.A.C.M.A. No.1386 of 2011

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the injured claimant aggrieved by the

judgment and decree dated 20.05.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.857 of 2007 passed by

the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District

Judge, Nalgonda. The claim petitioner was a minor boy aged about 05 years

represented by his mother and natural guardian. The claimant filed a claim

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, 'the M.V.

Act') claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by

him in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.25,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is preferred seeking

enhancement of compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- as claimed

by him.

2. As per the claim petition, the mother of the claimant along with

the claimant went to her relative's place at G.Yadavalli Village of Nalgonda

District. On 31.05.2007 at about 8:45 A.M., while the claimant was crossing

the road after attending nature call, an auto bearing No.AP24W6824 coming

from Chandur Village side in a rash and negligent manner hit the minor

Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1386 of 2011.

claimant and turned turtle on the road. The shirt of the minor claimant

hooked to the bumper of the auto due to which the minor claimant sustained

head injury as well as fracture of ribs. The police Kanagal registered a case in

Cr.No.62 of 2007 under Section 337 of I.P.C. against the driver of the auto.

It was stated in the claim petition that the minor claimant went into

unconscious state and was shifted to Government Hospital, Nalgonda where

he was treated as inpatient for two days. Subsequently, he was shifted to

Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad on 02.06.2007 and

was kept in I.C.U. for 4 days. He was discharged on 07.06.2007. During the

course of treatment he was evaluated and found to have hemopneumothorax

for which surgical intervention of right side was done. Blood clots were

removed and blood transfusion was done. 14 sutures were applied to his

head injury. The minor was suffering from pains, head ache and

sleeplessness problem. About Rs.75,000/- was spent towards his treatment,

surgery, diagnosis, etc.. As such, compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- was claimed

from respondents 1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the auto bearing

No.AP24W6824.

3. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. The respondent No.2-

insurance company filed counter contending that the accident took place due

to the negligence on the part of the claimant in crossing the road without

Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1386 of 2011.

observing the traffic. He slipped and fell down, sustained injuries and was

not entitled to any compensation, and claimed for strict proof of age, health

condition and medical expenses incurred by the claimant. The respondent

No.2 also contended that the driver of the auto was not holding valid and

effective driving licence at the time of the accident.

4. Before the Tribunal, the mother of the claimant was examined as

PW.1. The doctor who treated the claimant at Yashoda Super Specialty

Hospital was examined as PW.2. Exs.A1 to A10 were marked on behalf of

the claimant. The respondent No.2-insurance company got examined it's

employee as RW.1 and got examined the Administrative Officer of R.T.A.

Office, Nalgonda as RW.2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B5 on its behalf.

5. The main contention taken by the insurance company was that

the driver of the auto rickshaw was not holding a valid and effective driving

licence to drive an auto rickshaw which was a transport vehicle. This

contention was not accepted by the Tribunal. But no appeal was filed by the

insurance company on the said aspect. This appeal is filed by the injured

claimant seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.25,000/- awarded by

the Tribunal to Rs.1,50,000/- as claimed by him.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant and the learned

counsel for the respondent No.2-insurance company.

Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1386 of 2011.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimant was that

there was a minor variation in the evidence of doctor with that of the medical

certificate issued by the hospital which was marked as Ex.A4, due to which

the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW.2. The parents of the injured

claimant had spent more than Rs.75,000/- towards his treatment and filed

medical bills under Ex.A9, but the said medical bills were disbelieved by the

Tribunal without assigning any valid reason. The Tribunal failed to grant

compensation for extra-nourishment and failed to consider that the minor boy

had lost one academic year due to the injuries sustained by him in a motor

vehicle accident and prayed to enhance the compensation.

8. On a perusal of the evidence of PW.1, the mother of the

claimant stated that the claimant sustained:

              a)     Grievous injury over left ear to right eye.
              b)     Grievous injury over occipital region, surgical emphysema

seen in soft tissue of neck and Polytrauma, 14 sutures applied.

              c)     Grievous injury over right fore arm.
              d)     Fracture of 9th and 12th ribs of right side
              e)     Grievous injury over left temporal region.
              f)     Multiple injuries all over the body.
              g)     Grievous injuries on both patella.

                                                                          Dr.GRR,J
                                                              MACMA No.1386 of 2011.

She further stated that the injured claimant was admitted as inpatient in

Government Head Quarter Hospital, Nalgonda for two days and

subsequently, he was shifted to Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Malakpet,

Hyderabad on 02.06.2007. As his condition was very serious, he was kept in

I.C.U. for four days and was discharged on 07.06.2007. They spent more

than Rs.75,000/- towards his treatment, surgery, diagnosis, medicines and

extra-nourishment. Inspite of giving better treatment, claimant was not

recovered from the said injuries and fractures. He was suffering from pains,

head ache, sleeplessness, partial giddiness and other problems. He was

unable to concentrate his mind on his studies, and he was completely in bed-

ridden condition for a long period. He lost one academic year. He was aged

about 6 years at the time of the accident and filed Exs.A1 to A10 in support

of her contention. Nothing was elicited in her cross-examination to disbelieve

her evidence.

9. She also got examined the doctor at Yashoda Hospital,

Malakpet, Hyderabad who treated the injured as PW.2. PW.2 stated that the

claimant by name Sai Sandeep aged 5 years was admitted on 02.06.2007 with

history of R.T.A. with head injury and chest injury. He was treated at

Government Hospital before referring to their hospital. On his examination,

he found that the injured sustained the following injuries:

Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1386 of 2011.

              a)      Sutured wound over scalp,
              b)      Abrasions over left shoulder back,
              c)      Abrasion over left side of face,
              d)      Fracture of 9th and 12th ribs on right side and
                      haemothorax right side.

Intercostal drainage was done under local anesthesia. 50 C.C. blood drained

out. He was discharged on 07.06.2007. The patient was examined by

Pediatrician and chest specialist and stated that the above injuries were

grievous in nature.

10. The Tribunal observed that the evidence of PW.2 varied with

regard to the injuries sustained by the injured in the injury certificate. PW.2

stated about sutured wound over scalp but the same was mentioned as

abrasion over left scalp and there was no mention of polytrauma head injury

in the evidence of PW.1, which was mentioned in Ex.A4 and so also there

was no mention of fracture of 9th and 12th ribs of right side in Ex.A4 medical

certificate, which was found in the evidence of PW.2. The Tribunal held that

there was discrepancy in the evidence of PW.2 to that of Ex.A4 medical

certificate issued by the hospital of PW.2, as such, held that the evidence of

PW.2 could not be believed and relied.

Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1386 of 2011.

11. But on a perusal of record, it was seen that in Ex.A2, certified

copy of the injury certificate issued by the District Head Quarters Hospital,

Nalgonda the following five injuries were noted:

a. Abrasion over left ear b. Abrasion over right fore arm c. Laceration over occipital region d. Abrasion over temporal left region e. Abrasion over frontal region.

12. The injury certificate issued by the Yashoda Super Specialty

Hospital, Malakpet was marked as Ex.A3. In Ex.A3, it was recorded that the

claimant by name Sai Sandeep, aged 5 years was admitted in their hospital on

02.06.2007 with head injury, right side haemo pneumothorax and was

discharged on 07.06.2007. The injuries were marked as polytrauma - head

injury, abrasion over left face and left scalp and right side haemo

pneumothorax. The nature of injuries were certified to be grievous. The

discharge summary was marked as Ex.A6. It disclosed that there was a

sutured wound over scalp, abrasions over left shoulder back, abrasions over

left side of face. It was also noted that under all aseptic precautions ICD

(intercostal drainage) was done. 50ml blood was drained out from right

pleural cavity through 5th ICS through anterior axillary line. On examination,

he was found to have surgical haemopneumothorax on right side.

Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1386 of 2011.

13. This Court does not find any contradictions in the injuries noted

in Ex.A2, A3 and A6 with the evidence of PWs.1 or 2. The claimant was

initially evaluated at District Head quarters hospital and on preliminary

examination, the hospital authorities noted the injuries as abrasions and

lacerations and noted them as simple in nature but on a detailed evaluation,

the Yashoda hospital authorities had noted down that there was polytrauma -

head injury, right side haemo pneumothorax, which were grievous in nature.

The Tribunal ought not to have disbelieved the evidence of a qualified doctor

who was also the Head of the department and consultant General Surgeon in

a reputed private hospital, who on his evaluation stated about the injuries

sustained by the claimant. The same were also supported by the X-Rays,

diagnostic reports, etc. The diagnostic reports also would disclose the

fractures on 9th and 12th ribs. As the X-Rays and the original diagnostic

reports were also filed, the Tribunal ought not to have disbelieved the same.

14. When the claimant had filed medical bills for an amount of

Rs.41,906/-, the Tribunal awarding an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards

medical expenses is considered as improper. The claimant is entitled to an

amount of Rs.41,906/-, the actual amount incurred by the parents of the

claimant towards the medical bills at Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital,

Malakpet.

Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1386 of 2011.

15. Considering the evidence of PW.2 and the grievous injuries

sustained by the claimant on his head and chest wherein it was stated that the

claimant sustained 14 sutures over his head and haemo pneumothorax and

blood clot at the chest region was drained out under general anesthesia and as

the minor claimant was admitted in I.C.U. for four days in the hospital, it is

considered fit to award an amount of Rs.50,000/- as against the amount of

Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering.

16. The claimant is also entitled to an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards

extra-nourishment and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation

charges as he was transported from G. Yadavalli to Nalgonda and from there

to Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet towards 'to and fro' charges and for his

follow up treatment. It is also considered reasonable to award an amount of

Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges as his parents might have attended to

him by leaving their routine jobs.

17. As there was no evidence to show that the injured claimant had

sustained any permanent disability or that he sustained loss of any academic

year and as he was a young boy of five years of age, no amounts were

awarded under these heads.

18. Hence, the injured claimant is entitled to compensation under

various heads as follows:

Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.1386 of 2011.

            1. Pain and Suffering           -     Rs. 50,000/-

            2. Medical expenses             -     Rs. 41,906/-

            3. Extra-nourishment            -     Rs.      5,000/-

            4. Transport charges            -     Rs.      5,000/-

            5. Attendant charges            -     Rs. 5,000/-
                                                  -----------------
                         Total              -     Rs.1,06,906/-
                                                  -----------------