Telangana High Court

K Rama Chandra Murthy vs Nalla Narasimha Reddy And Another on 29 September, 2023

Bench: Laxmi Narayana Alishetty

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.159 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

Heard learned counsel Sri G.L.Narasimha Rao for the

appellant/claimant and Sri. Ramachandra Reddy, learned

standing counsel for respondent no.2.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/ claimant

dissatisfied with the award passed by the VIII Additional District &

sessions Judge at Nizamabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in O.P.No.1203

of 2010, dated 30.07.2014 and thereby seeking enhancement of

compensation.

3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.

4. On 11.06.2010 at about 02.20 pm, the appellant-K.Rama

Chandra Murthy was proceeding on his bullet motorcycle bearing

registration No.AIH-5206 to Malakpet Trafffic Police Station for

attending his duty, while he reached near Konark Diagnostic

Centre, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad, a School Bus bearing

registration No.AP-29-V-2910 dashed the said motorcycle from

behind at high speed in rash and negligent manner and due to

which, the received sustained grievous injuries and multiple LNA,J MACMA No.159 of 2015

fractures and the appellant's bike was also badly damaged and

appellant was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad

for treatment. The Police, Malakpet P.S., registered a case in Crime

No.222/2010 under Sections 337 against the driver of the

offending vehicle and filed charge sheet.

5. The claimant, i.e., appellant has filed claim petition against

owner of the vehicle and insurance company under Section 166 of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal claiming

compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% per

annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of deposit.

6. The appellant/claimant was aged about 44 years as on the

date of accident, hale and healthy and working as Traffic Police

constable and earning income of Rs. 24,588/- per month. Due to

multiple injuries, he is unable to walk properly and unable to

perform his duty properly and he may lose increments and

promotional opportunities.

7. The Respondent No.1-owner of offending vehicle remained

ex-parte. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter

denying the allegations in the claim petition and contended that LNA,J MACMA No.159 of 2015

the driver of the School Bus was not having valid driving license

and further, the insured and insurer of School Bus were necessary

parties and that the compensation claimed by the claimant is

highly exorbitant and excessive and therefore, prayed for dismissal

of the claim petition.

8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed

the following issues:

i) Whether the accident that had occurred on 11.06.2010 at about 14.20 hours near Konark Diagnostic Center, Gaddiannaram, Malakpet was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the school bus bearing registration NO.AP-29-V-2910, whether it had resulted in the injuries to the petitioner Sri K.Ramachandra Murthy, S/o: Late.KVG Subramanyam?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for?

iii) To what relief ?

9. In order to substantiate the case, P.Ws.1 and 2 were

examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of the claimant.

To disprove the claim of the appellant, the 2nd respondent-

insurance company did not examine any witness, but copy of

insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.

LNA,J MACMA No.159 of 2015

10. The Tribunal after considering the evidence placed on record,

came to a conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and

negligent driving of School Bus bearing registration No.AP-29-V-

2910 and awarded compensation of Rs.46,000/- along with

interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

depositing of amount. The owner of the offending vehicle and the

insurance company i.e., respondent Nos.1 & 2 were held to be

jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.

11. During the course of hearing of appeal, learned counsel for

appellant contended that the Tribunal did not award proper and

just compensation and erred in ignoring the medical bills Exs.A6

and A7 and also failed to consider and award the amount for 75

days, during which period the appellant was sick. He also

contended that injuries sustained by the appellant are grievous in

nature and therefore, the Tribunal erred in not awarding any

amount for the injuries sustained by the appellant.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2-insurance

company would contend that the Tribunal awarded proper and just

compensation on due consideration of the material and evidence LNA,J MACMA No.159 of 2015

placed before the Tribunal and there are no merits in the appeal

filed by the appellant and thus, appeal is liable to be dismissed.

13. With regard to compensation, the Tribunal on due

consideration of the documents placed before the Tribunal i.e.,

Ex.A3-copy of MLC, Ex.A4-discharge summary, Ex.A6-bunch of

medical bills and Ex.A7-Certificate issued by the Station House

Officer, Traffic to the effect that appellant had reported sick for 75

days, had came to conclusion that Exs.A6 and A7 cannot be taken

into consideration. The Tribunal had recorded its reasons for non-

consideration of Exs.A6 and A7 as under:

"Ex.A3 which is a certified copy of the MLC issued by Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad shows that the petitioner had sustained poly trauma in the said accident, the same being simple in nature. Ex.A7 is a certificate dated 13.12.2013 issued by the Station House Officer, Traffic P.S., Malakpet, Hyderabad to the effect that the petitioner had reported sick for 75 days i.e., from 11.06.2010 to 24.08.2010. Ex.A6 which comprises a bunch of medical bills shows that petitioner had incurred an expenditure of Rs.10,643/- for his treatment. Ex.A5 which is the pay slip of the petitioner pertaining to August, 2010 shows that the petitioner who works as a Police Constable had a gross salary of Rs.24,588/-. However, there is no evidence that the petitioner who is a government servant has suffered any loss of income during the period he was forced to take rest. Further, Ex.A6 medical bills have not been LNA,J MACMA No.159 of 2015

authenticated by P.W.2. There is no evidence that these bills which pertain to NIMS, Apollo Hospitals, etc relate to the treatment taken by the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. As such, Exs.A6 and A7 cannot be taken into consideration."

14. In the light of the observations recorded by the Tribunal and

in the absence of any material evidencing loss of salary for 75 days

and also any evidence to substantiate the claim of appellant that

bunch of medical bills, which are marked as Ex.A6, relates to

treatment taken by the appellant, this court is of the considered

view that appeal is devoid of merits and no grounds are made out

warranting interference by this Court with the award passed by the

Tribunal.

15. Therefore, the Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

16. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.

[[