Telangana High Court

Nevuri Sai Charan vs Dr.Kalyan And Another on 10 April, 2024

 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                 M.A.C.M.A.No.2803 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel

for the appellant and Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned

counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-

claimant aggrieved and dissatisfied by the award passed by the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special

Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA)

Act-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga

Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, 'Tribunal') in

M.V.O.P.No.923 of 2011, dated 13.03.2017 and thereby, seeking

for enhancement of compensation.

3. The appellant herein is the petitioner, respondent no.1

herein is the owner of the crime vehicle and respondent no.2

herein is the insurance company before the Tribunal. For LNA, J M.A.C.M.A.No.2803 of 2017

convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed

before the Tribunal.

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

4.1. On 24.08.2011 at about 2.00 p.m, the petitioner along with

his mother was going on his motorcycle bearing registration

No.AP-28-AZ-7752 from Balajinagar to Lalgadi Malakpet

Village and when they reached near Sports School Thumkunta

Village, on Rajiv Rahadari, one Ford Car bearing registration

No.AP-10-AX-4445 (hereinafter referred to as crime vehicle),

driven by its driver, in rash and negligent manner from

opposite direction dashed against his bike. As a result, the

petitioner and his mother fell down from the bike and

sustained injuries. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to

Area Hospital and later Gandhi Hospital. For better treatment,

he was shifted to Sunshine Hospital, Secunderabad, where he

was admitted as in-patient on 25.08.2011 and was operated

three times and nails were inserted. It was noticed by the

Doctors that petitioner received perineal debridement, LNA, J

Cystoscopy, Tocar SPC and he is on pelvic binder and skin

traction to right lower limb; that due to fracture and injuries,

the claimant had incurred about Rs.3,50,000/- towards medical

expenses in the said hospital, further he may require future

medical expenses for removal of nails etc. The Police,

P.S.Shamirpet of Cyberabad registered a case vide Crime

No.222/2011 under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of

crime vehicle.

4.2. The petitioner/injured filed claim petition against the

respondents 1 and 2 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest from the date of the petition

till the date of realization.

4.3. It is contended that petitioner was aged about 20 years,

hale and healthy by the time of the accident, and was working

as photographer and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month.

However, due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner/

injured in the road accident, his life has become miserable and LNA, J

he is totally disabled; that due to fracture injuries, petitioner

spent Rs.2,50,000/- for medical expenses.

5. The respondent no.1-owner of the crime vehicle filed

counter denying the contents of the petitioner inter alia

contending that the accident was not caused due to rash and

negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle and that the

crime vehicle is insured with the respondent no.2-insurance

company. Therefore, it is contended that the driver of the crime

vehicle is not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, prayed to

dismiss the claim petition.

6. The respondent no.2-insurance company filed counter

denying the manner of the accident as narrated by the

petitioner and further contended that the driver of the crime

vehicle was not having valid driving licence and prayed to

dismiss the claim petition.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were

framed by the Tribunal:

LNA, J

"1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Ford car bearing No.AP-

10-AX-4445?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, from whom and what just amount?

3. To what relief?"

8. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the

petitioner, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A1 to A15 and

Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no

witness was examined, however, Insurance Policy was marked

as Ex.B1.

9. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the material and

evidence placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident

took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver

of the crime vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.4,80,000/-

towards compensation to the petitioner, payable by

respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally with costs and

interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of

realization.

LNA, J

10. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the

appellant/injured contended that the Tribunal ought to have

considered the income of the injured at Rs.10,000/- per month

or at least Rs.6,000/- in accordance with the judgments of the

Hon'ble Apex Court; that the Tribunal failed to consider the

future prospects of the petitioner/injured by considering the

decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court i.e., Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir

Singh and others 1; Syed Sadiq vs. United India Insurance Company2;

and Munna Lal Jain and another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and

others3; that the Tribunal ought to have considered the

functional disability at 100% due to physical disability at 30%

as per medical evidence; that Tribunal ought to have granted

more compensation under the head pain and suffering,

however, the Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/-, which is meager.

He further submitted the Tribunal ought to have taken the loss

of income for a period of at least 6 months during the period of

treatment; that Tribunal erred in awarding interest only at 6%

(2013) 9 SCC 54

AIR 2014 SC 1052

(2015) 3 ACJ 1985 LNA, J

instead of 12% and finally, prayed to enhance the

compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has

submitted that the Tribunal, on due consideration of the

material and evidence on record, has rightly awarded the

compensation and the same does not require any enhancement

and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

12. Insofar as the contention of learned counsel for

appellant/injured with regard to the income of the petitioner,

through the petitioner failed to show that he was a

photographer and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal

has taken the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.5,000/-

without there being any proof, which in considered opinion of

this Court is just and reasonable considering the age and

avocation of the petitioner.

13. Perusal of the record would show that the petitioner

sustained the injuries viz., Shaft fracture right femur, Public

symposia diastasis, Urethral rupture and Lacerated wound LNA, J

over perianal region, which are grievous in nature, and was

diagnosed for the above injuries; and underwent surgery and

nails were inserted and the petitioner requires two surgeries

for removal of implants, which requires at least Rs.25,000/-, in

addition to Rs.25,000/- for room rent and other charges. The

Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and

suffering. In view of the above, in considered opinion of this

Court the amount granted by the Tribunal towards pain and

suffering is meager and therefore, this Court is inclined to

award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head pain and

suffering and the same needs to be modified to the above

extent.

14. Insofar as quantum of compensation towards loss of

income, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.20,000/-.

Perusal of the evidence and material placed on record would

show that the alleged accident was occurred on 24.08.2011, that

immediately he was admitted in hospital as in-patient

25.08.2011 and was operated for three times and nails were

inserted; that on 16.09.2011, 'interlocking nail of right femur LNA, J

was done on the advice of Plastic Surgeon Urologist. Further,

according to the evidence of P.W.6-Dr.S.Vidyasagar, petitioner

sustained distraction injuries of posterior urethane, which was

grievous in nature and they have done Anastigmatic

Urethroplasty on 04.04.2012.

15. In view of the above, the petitioner lost earnings income

at least for ten months from the date of accident. In the light of

the continuous treatment and also fact that the operation

conducted after a period of ten months from the date of

accident, this Court is inclined to grant a sum Rs.50,000/-

towards loss of income of the claimant for period of ten months

considering the monthly income of Rs.5,000/- as fixed by the

Tribunal and the same need to be modified to the above extent.

16. Insofar as the quantum of interest awarded, the Tribunal

has granted interest @ 6% per annum. As per the recent

decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts,

it is just and appropriate to grant interest @ 7.5% per annum

and same need to be modified to the said extent.

LNA, J

17. Further, considering the material available on record, this

Court is not inclined to interfere with the amounts awarded by

the Tribunal under other heads.

Conclusion:

18. In view of the above discussion, material and evidence

placed on record, the compensation amount is recalculated as

under:

Sl.No.               Head               Compensation awarded

1        Loss of Income                 Rs.50,000/- (Rs.5,000/- per
                                        month for a period of ten
                                        months)
2        Pain and suffering             Rs.1,00,000/-

3        Injuries                       Rs.1,00,000/-

4        Medical expenses               Rs.2,20,000/-
5        Future medical expenses        Rs. 50,000/-

6        Transportation Charges         Rs. 10,000/-

7        Extra nourishment              Rs. 20,000/-

8        Attendant charges              Rs. 10,000/-

9        Total compensation amount:     Rs.5,60,000/-

19. In the result, this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount

from Rs.4,80,000/- to Rs.5,60,000/-. The said compensation LNA, J

amount shall also carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the

date of the claim petition made before the Tribunal till the date

of the actual payment. Both the respondents herein are directed

to ensure that the entire amount of compensation is deposited

within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of

this order, duly adjusting the amount, if any, already paid by

them. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw

the entire compensation amount.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand