Telangana High Court
Beerelli Mallikarjuna Rao , ... vs The Chiet Secretary, Secretariat, ... on 19 April, 2024
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1714 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional Chief
Judge City Civil Court at Hyderabad in O.P. No. 47 of 2012, dated
02.03.2016, the claim petitioner in the above MVOP preferred the
present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to
as arrayed before the learned Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioner filed a
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained
by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 13.09.2011. As per
the claim petitioner, he was a businessman by profession. On
13.09.2011 at about 16:30 PM while the petitioner was returning to
his house via P.V Ghat, Necklace road on his motor cycle bearing No.
AP 09 BS 5751, a police jeep/van bearing No. AP.09.6653 coming
from opposite direction being driven by its driver in a high speed in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle of petitioner.
2 MGP,J
Macma_1714_2017
As a result, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained
grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to
NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta, Hyderabad and later shifted to Udai
Clinic, Chappal Road for further treatment and he was admitted as
inpatient vide IP No. PRI-11-3548 for a period of 14 days. On
information Police, Ramgopalpet Police Station of Hyderabad,
registered a case in Crime No.206 of 2011 for the offence under
Section 337 IPC against the driver of said police jeep/van bearing No.
AP.09.6653. The claimant was hale and healthy and used to earn not
less than a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month and was the sole earning
member of the family. In the said accident the petitioner sustained
fracture of right knee patella, fracture of lateral and medial condyl of
femur, complete rupture of patella ligament with dislocation of right
knee and other grievous multiple injuries all over his body. He also
underwent an operation for Debridement GRIF Femur with screws
TBW patella right repair patella ligament and gastroneimus flat SSG
on 15.09.2011 and spent a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the same. Due
to the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner suffered great
pain, discomfort and mental agony and 100% loss of income and
hence, filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from
all the respondents jointly and severally.
3 MGP,J
Macma_1714_2017
4. Respondent No.2 filed counter, which was adopted by
Respondent No.1. They denied all the averments made in the claim
petition including, the manner of accident, rash and negligent driving
of the driver of jeep/van, age, occupation and income of the
petitioner, nature of injuries sustained to him, the amount incurred
by him for medical treatment and percentage of disability. It is also
contended that on the said date of accident the police vehicle bearing
No. AP.09.6653 which was under the control of Intelligence Security
Wing, Khairtabad was parked on the side of the necklace road
without creating any obstruction to free flow of traffic as the vehicle
was broke down due to lack of battery supply and become immobile.
While so, the petitioner without observing the hazard parking lights
dashed the parked vehicle and sustained injuries. On these grounds
the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contended that they are not liable to pay
any compensation and that the compensation claimed is excess and
exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition with exemplary
costs.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed
the following issues:-
4 MGP,J
Macma_1714_2017
(i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident
on 13.09.2011, due to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the jeep/van bearing No. AP.09.6653?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If
so, from whom?
(iii) To what relief
6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claim petitioner PWs 1 to
4 were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-19 and Ex. X-1. On
behalf of respondents, RW-1 was examined and got marked Ex. B-1-
Copy of insurance policy.
7. After considering the evidence and documents available on
record, the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of
Rs.2,08,507/- as compensation with interest @ 7% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of realization, jointly and severally
payable by all the respondents. Dissatisfied with the said
compensation amount, the appellant/claim petitioner has filed the
present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
8. Heard both sides and perused the record including the grounds
of appeal.
9. The main contention of the appellant is that though he proved
the case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence, the learned
5 MGP,J
Macma_1714_2017
Tribunal without considering the same, has awarded meager amount
towards compensation, hence, prayed to enhance the compensation
amount by allowing the appeal. Per contra learned counsel for the
insurance company argued that the learned Tribunal after
considering all the aspects has rightly awarded reasonable
compensation, for which interference of this Court is unwarranted
and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. Now, the point that emerges for consideration is,
Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal requires
interference by this Court?
11. This Court has perused the evidence and documents filed on
behalf of both sides. The appellant as PW-1 reiterated the contents of
his claim application and deposed about the manner of accident and
injuries sustained by him. In order to prove the injuries he got
examined PW-2/doctor, who deposed that the claimant was admitted
in their hospital on 13.09.2011 at around 7:15 P.M with history of
R.T.A with open fracture and dislocation of the right knee. He further
deposed that the fractures were operated and dislocation of the knee
was reduced on same night on 13.09.2011. The 2nd surgery of repair
of patella and plastic surgery to cover this skin defect in front of this
6 MGP,J
Macma_1714_2017
knee with muscle flap ad skin grafting was done on 15.09.2011. PW1
remained in the hospital until 26.09.2011 and he was discharged
with instructions to come back for follow-up treatments. The
fractures were fixed with wire and screws. The injuries are grievous
in nature. Exhibits A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-14, A-15,
A-16, A-17, were issued by the hospital of PW2. As per Ex.A-16,
disability is 50% to 60%. The removal of implants cost around
Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/-. PW2 further deposed that the claimant
can bend his knee only to an extent of 15 degree instead of 130
degrees and he may need joint replacement eventually after 5 to 10
years. The knee implantation which is inserted presently will have no
effect in future. In Ex.A-7 and A-8 are corrected version carried out
by his assistant doctor by name Dr. Shankar Shetty who assisted
him in drawing conclusion that the disability is partial and
permanent in nature and admitted the contents of Exs. A-6 to A-9
and A-11 to A-17.
12. Further, the appellant examined PW-3, who is the billing
manager of the hospital. He corroborated the evidence of PW-1
regarding the issuance of the bills under Exs.A-9 and A-10. PW3
admitted that the claimant admitted in their hospital with history of
7 MGP,J
Macma_1714_2017
Road Traffic Accident (RTA) on 13.09.2011 as an in-patient vide
I.P.No. PRI 11-3548. The patient incurred bill vide I.P.No. PRI 11-
3548 dated 26.09.2011 for Rs.1,35,490/-, inpatient bill No.5411
dated 26.09.2011 for Rs.5,925/-Pharmacy bill of Rs.27,092/-. The
total amount of Rs.1,68,507/-, the above amount paid by the patient
by way of cash only and Exs. A-9 and Ex-A-10, which are discharge
bill and bunch of medical bills respectively were issued by Udai
Omini (Udai Clinic) hospital and signed by the staff of his hospital. It
was further stated that Exs.A-9 and A-10 were not covered by any
government reimbursement scheme and any other schemes. Though,
P.W-1 to P.W-3 are cross examined at length, nothing worth was
elucidated to disbelieve their evidence.
13. With regard to the manner in which the accident took place, a
perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that the claim petition
was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal
has framed issue No.1 as to whether the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of crime vehicle, to
which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.1 coupled
with the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A-1, FIR and Ex.A-3, charge
sheet, has categorically observed that the accident occurred due to
8 MGP,J
Macma_1714_2017
the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and
has answered the issue in favour of the claimant and against the
respondent. Therefore, this court do not see no reason to interfere
with the finding of the Tribunal to the extent that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by
its driver.
14. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the
claimant was admitted as inpatient on 13.09.2011, he underwent
operation for debridement GRIF femur with screws TBW patella right
repair patella ligament and gastroneimus flat SSG on 15.09.2011 and
was discharged on 26.09.2011 as per Ex. A-7 discharge summary
and as per Ex. A-12 the appellant took follow up treatment of
physiotherapy. Exs.A-6 to A-11, Injury Certificate and other medical
bills, discloses that the claimant suffered fracture of right knee
patella and lateral, medial condyl of femur complete rupture of
ligament and dislocation of right knee and other grievous injuries.
Exs.A-6 to A-11 is substantiated with the evidence of the doctor,
P.W.2 who also admitted the fracture injuries and operation of the
same. Considering the said medical evidence, though the learned
Tribunal had awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain, suffering and
9 MGP,J
Macma_1714_2017
trauma and Rs.25,000/- towards injury, Rs.5,000/- towards extra
nourishment, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, which appears to
be low. Hence, considering all the aspect, this Court is inclined to
enhance the compensation amount on various head as follows:
15. Since the petitioner has sustained fracture injuries apart from
dislocation of knee, those injuries are considered as grievous injuries
more particularly, in view of oral evidence of PW2 coupled with injury
certificate issued by PW2. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for
Rs.50,000/- towards injuries sustained by him. As most of the
injuries sustained by the petitioner were grievous in nature and as
the petitioner underwent surgery more than once, the petitioner
might have sustained any amount of pain and sufferance during the
bedridden period, hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.30,000/-
under the head of pain and suffering. As the petitioner has
sustained fracture injuries, he took treatment in two hospitals and
also underwent surgery more than once, he would have incurred
considerable amount towards transportation, extra nourishment and
attendant charges. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.25,000/-
towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges.
10 MGP,J
Macma_1714_2017
16. Now coming to the loss of income, as can be seen from the
impugned order, there is no whisper about the loss of income
sustained by the petitioner. Though the petitioner claimed an
amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of partial earnings, learned
Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the said head.
Admittedly the claimant has sustained grievous injuries and was
admitted in the hospital and undergone treatment for more than two
weeks and after discharge from the hospital he might have taken
considerable time for recovery. It is also pertinent to note that the
petitioner underwent surgery more than once. Therefore during the
period from the date of accident till he recovered from the injuries,
the petitioner failed to carry out his regular job of running general
provisional store and has suffered loss of income. Thus, considering
the above facts and circumstances, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is
being awarded for partial loss of earnings. However, this Court is not
inclined to modify the amount of Rs.1,68,507/- awarded by the
Tribunal under the head of medical bills as the same was awarded in
consonance with the medical bills submitted by the petitioner. Even
though the claimant claimed an amount of Rs.4,88,000/- towards
permanent disability, no substantial evidence is placed by the
petitioner to that effect. Moreover, the person, who has issued
11 MGP,J
Macma_1714_2017
disability certificate admitted that the said certificate was issued for
the purpose of pension benefits and other government benefits and it
is not applicable to MLC cases. Hence, the learned Tribunal has
rightly rejected the said claim of the petitioner for permanent
disability.
17. Accordingly, the Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal from Rs.2,08,507/-
to Rs.2,98,507/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
18. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 19.04.2024
AS
