Telangana High Court

Shaik Muneeruddin, Nizamabad vs Sri Raja Rajeshwara Swamy ... on 29 September, 2023

Bench: Laxmi Narayana Alishetty

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                  M.A.C.M.A.NO.750 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

Heard learned counsel Sri P.Radhive Reddy for the

appellant/claimant and Sri. C.H.Satish Kumar, learned standing

counsel for respondent no.2-insurance company.

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

dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge at Nizamabad (for

short, 'MACT') in O.P.No.1077 of 2007, dated 10.09.2013 and

thereby seeking enhancement of compensation.

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

4. On 28.12.2006 about 8.30 am, the appellant/claimant was

peddling cycle by the side of the road very slowly from Perkit

towards Morthad side, while he reached petrol pump of Lakkora

village shivar, a Car bearing registration No.AP-15-AC-3393

dashed the said cycle from behind and due to which, the appellant

received right leg both bones compound comminuted fractures,

head injury and he was shifted to M.J.Hospital, Armoor. The LNA,J MACMA No.750 of 2015

Police, Velpur P.S., registered a case 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(1)(a) of M.V.Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 M.V.Rules, 1989

before the MACT claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along

with interest @ 24% per annum from 14.12.2007 till the date of

deposit of amount.

6. The appellant was aged about 50 years as on the date of

accident, hale and healthy and was working as Attender in Upper

Primary School, Kompally and was earning income of Rs.10,000/-

per month and due to physical disability, he was unable to work

and survive.

7. The respondent No.1-owner of offending vehicle filed counter

denying the allegations in the claim petition and contended that

the appellant did not sustain any injury or fracture. He further

contended that if the case of the appellant is proved, the insurance

company is liable to pay the compensation as the offending vehicle

is insured with the insurance company.

LNA,J MACMA No.750 of 2015

8. The respondent No.2-insurance company also filed counter

denying the allegations in the claim petition and further contended

that there was clear violation of conditions of the policy and

therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any

compensation and that the compensation claimed by the appellant

is highly exorbitant and excess and therefore, prayed for dismissal

of the claim petition.

9. On the basis of the above pleadings, the MACT framed the

following issues:

i) Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing No.AP-15AC-3393 by its driver?

ii) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident and whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

iii) To what relief ?

10. In order to substantiate the case, the appellant examined

himself as P.W.1 and examined another witness as P.W.2 and

Exs.A1 to A6 were marked on his behalf. To disprove the claim of

the appellant, the respondent Nos 1 and 2 did not examine any

witness and did not produce any document.

LNA,J MACMA No.750 of 2015

11. The MACT after considering the pleadings and evidence

placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place

due to rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing registration

No.AP-15-AC-3393 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-

along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from 14.02.2007 till the

date of deposit 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 amount.

12. During the course of hearing of present appeal, the learned

counsel for appellant submitted that the MACT has awarded

meager amounts towards compensation for pain and suffering,

medical expenses, extra nourishment and transportation etc. The

MACT ought to have granted future expenses that would be

incurred for medical needs and prayed for enhancement of

compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

13. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for insurance

company submitted that the MACT, on appreciation of the

evidence and material placed on record, had rightly awarded the

compensation and there is no need to interfere with the award of

the MACT and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

LNA,J MACMA No.750 of 2015

Consideration:

14. With regard to issue no.1, on consideration of evidence and

the material placed on record, the MACT had come to conclusion

that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending vehicle, resulting in injuries to appellant in

the accident.

15. With regard to the monthly income of the deceased, the

MACT had taken the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.4,000/-

per month

16. In Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Rayal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court

at paragraphs-13 & 14 observed that,

"13........... appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as coolie and was earning Rs.4,500/- per month at the time of the accident.

......

The appellant was working as a coolie and, therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant.

"14............the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible

(2011) 13 SCC 236 LNA,J MACMA No.750 of 2015

income by resorting to some guesswork, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time."

17. The Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at

providing relief to the victims or their families, therefore, in view of

the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa (supra),

this Court is of the considered view that monthly earnings of the

claimant can be taken as Rs.4,500/-, even in the absence of any

evidence. In view of the above decision, by taking the monthly

salary of Rs.4,500/-, and the loss of earnings of the appellant for a

period of three months comes to Rs.13,500/-.

18. In so far as the quantum of compensation awarded in

respect of the injuries sustained, the appellant examined P.W.2,

who is Doctor, who treated the appellant, deposed that the injury

sustained by the appellant is simple and denied that P.W.1 did not

undergo operation. Appellant also claimed that he incurred an

amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medicines. But, he failed to

produce any medical bills. Though the appellant produced Ex.A6-

orthopaedically handicapped certificate issued by the Medical

Board in respect of disability of 45%, he failed to examine the

Doctor, who issued Ex.A6 to show that he suffered disability of LNA,J MACMA No.750 of 2015

45%. The MACT did not consider the discharge certificate on the

ground that the claimant failed to examine the Doctor, who issued

certificate. The MACT had awarded collectively an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards disability and fracture and also towards

insertion of rod, operation and medical expenses etc., including

grievous injuries, however, the MACT did not elaborate on

quantification of each head. In considered view of this Court, the

compensation awarded by the MACT is improper and needs to be

interfered with by this Court and accordingly, compensation

amount is enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/-, to meet

the ends of justice.

19. In so for as the quantum of compensation awarded towards

extra nourishment, this Court is of the view that appellant is

entitled to an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month for three months,

which comes to Rs.9,000/-. The appellant is entitled to Rs.5,000/-

towards transportation charges.

20. In considered view of this Court, the appellant is entitled to

the following compensation:

Sl.No.     Head                           Compensation awarded

1          Towards extra nourishment @    Rs.   9, 000/-
           Rs.3000/- p.m.,    for three
           months
                                                                               LNA,J
                                                               MACMA No.750 of 2015




2          Towards loss of earnings for a     Rs.   13,500/-
           period   of   3   months     @
           Rs.4,500/- p.m.
3          Towards transportation             Rs.    5,000/-

4          Towards disability and fractures   Rs. 1,25,000/-
           and also towards insertion of
           rod,      operation,     medical
           expenses      etc.    (including
           grievous injuries)
5          Total compensation to be paid      Rs.1,52,000/-

21. The award shall relate back to the date of the decree and the

enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. and

from the time indicated in the award of the MACT.

Conclusion:

22. The Appeal is allowed in part enhancing compensation from

Rs.1,20,000/- to Rs.1,52,000/-. The respondent no.2-Insurance

Company herein shall deposit the compensation amount within a

period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this

order. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the

entire amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

23. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.

[[