Telangana High Court

Mohd.Raheemuddin vs Jatinder Singh K.Dhami And Another on 23 August, 2024

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                  AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.2783 of 2013

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao)

This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the

appellant-claimant aggrieved by the order and decree dated

10.05.2013 passed in O.P.No.2567 of 2008 on the file of the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal').

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as

they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-

On 09.06.2008 at about 10.00 p.m., while the petitioner was

proceeding in a Tata Safari Car bearing No.TR.No.KA-25/5490 along

with three others and the driver, and when they reached near Andhra

Balaji Dhaba, the driver drove the said vehicle at high speed in a rash

and negligent manner and dashed to a tree, as a result of which, the

petitioner sustained grievous injuries all over the body. He was

immediately shifted to the Government Hospital, Basawakalyan, and

thereafter, he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad. He

SP,J and RRN,J

was admitted as an inpatient and underwent a major operation. The

Police Basawakalyan registered a case in Cr.No.63 of 2008 for the

offences punishable under Sections 338 and 304-A IPC against the

driver of TATA Safari Car. The petitioner stated that he used to do

business under the name of M/s.Kalyani Roadways and used to earn

Rs.12,000/- per month. The petitioner filed the claim petition seeking

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, which was later enhanced to

Rs.15,00,000/- by way of order in I.A.No.3841 of 2010 dated

28.04.2011.

4. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1 filed a counter denying

the allegations made in the claim petition.

5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a counter denying

the allegations made in the claim petition. It is stated that the

petitioner was not a third party and was a gratuitous passenger.

Hence, the respondent's Insurance Company is not liable to pay any

compensation. The policy issued by the respondent's Insurance

Company does not cover the petitioner. The premium collected covers

only the owner's damage cover, towards TP liability cover and PA

cover for the owner driver. The insured paid no additional premium to

cover the risks of inmates in any manner. Further, the driver of the

Tata Safari bearing TR.No.KA 25-5490 was not holding a valid and

SP,J and RRN,J

effective driving license at the time of the accident, which is a

contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the

1st respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation. Further, the

rate of interest claimed is excessive and accordingly, prayed to

dismiss the claim petition.

6. To prove the petitioner's case, PWs.1 to 5 were examined, and

Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of

the respondents, but Ex.B1-Copy of the Insurance Policy was marked.

7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary

evidence available on record, allowed the claim petition in part by

granting a sum of Rs.3,69,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum

from the date of the petition till the date of realization and the

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay the

awarded amount. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the

present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner contended that the

Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the petitioner as

Rs.4,500/- per month instead of Rs.12,000/- per month based on

Ex.A-6, which is a public document. The Tribunal failed to consider

Ex.A5-Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board. PW.5-the

Doctor issued the Medical Certificate, and he assessed the disability

SP,J and RRN,J

at 50%, but the Tribunal failed to consider the same. As the petitioner

has sustained injuries and disability, the Tribunal ought to have

awarded just compensation under various heads as claimed by the

petitioner and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre

and unjustifiable.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has

contended that the Tribunal, after considering the nature of injuries

sustained by the petitioner and based on the evidence, has rightly

awarded compensation and the same needs no interference by this

Court.

10. Heard Sri A. Atchuta Ram, learned counsel for the appellant-

claimant and Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, learned counsel for respondent

No.2/ Insurance Company and perused the record.

11. The evidence of PWs.1 to 5, coupled with documentary evidence,

established that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the Tata Safari Car bearing No.TR.No.KA-

25/5490. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in

which the accident took place has become final, as the respondents

do not challenge the same.

SP,J and RRN,J

12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the

Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,000/- towards transport,

Rs.3,25,000/- towards medical expenditure, extra nourishment,

treatment, and private attendant, Rs.30,000/- towards pain and

suffering and mental agony. In all, the Tribunal awarded a

compensation of Rs.3,69,500/-.

13. With regards to the injuries suffered by the petitioner, as per

Ex.A-3, the petitioner sustained crush injury in the left arm, elbow

and forearm with open comminuted humerus fracture with intra

articular extension right with bone loss/closed radius fracture upper

3rd left. With regard to the disability, as per Ex.A-5-Disability

Certificate, the petitioner sustained 50% disability. However, despite

the petitioner filing Ex.A-5-Disability Certificate, the Tribunal has not

considered the same and has not granted any amount towards

disability. Ex.A-5 was issued by PW.5 since the petitioner approached

PW.5 through the Medical Board. PW.5-Civil Surgeon Orthopaedic

categorically deposed that Ex.A-5 was issued by the Medical Board,

OGH, Hyderabad and also stated that the petitioner was suffering

from Post-traumatic Sequelae, resulting in Flail left elbow and loss of

grip in the left hand. As such, the Tribunal ought to have considered

the Disability Certificate, which was issued by the Medical Board

only, and ought not to have questioned its genuineness. In the

SP,J and RRN,J

absence of contra evidence, this Court is inclined to take into

consideration the disability at 50%, as assessed by PW.5.

14. As regards the loss of income suffered by the petitioner, the

Tribunal observed that, according to the petitioner, he used to do

business in the name of M/s.Kalyani Roadways and earn Rs.12,000/-

per month, but there is no authenticated documentary evidence or

supporting oral evidence except Ex.A6-Income Tax return. The

Tribunal held that the I-T returns could not be taken as a gospel

truth since it is only a self-declaration, without any supporting

documentary proof. Hence, the Tribunal fixed the income of the

petitioner at Rs.4500/- in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in RAMACHANDRAPPA VS. THE MANAGER, ROYAL

SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 1, and

accordingly awarded Rs.13,500/- towards loss of earnings for a period

of three months.

15. However, in the instant case, the petitioner is doing transport

business. Nowadays, even an unskilled labourer is earning an

amount of Rs.300/- per day, which comes to Rs.9,000/- per month.

Without any proof of salary certificate, considering the nature of

business done by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to fix the

(2011) 13 SCC 236

SP,J and RRN,J

petitioner's monthly income at Rs.8,000/- per month. As per

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRANAY SETHI

AND OTHERS 2, to this, 40% is to be added towards future prospects,

which comes to Rs.11,200/- (Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/-) and the

annual income would come to Rs.1,34,400/- (Rs.11,200/- x 12). At

the time of the accident, the petitioner was aged 32 years. As per the

decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT

CORPORATION 3, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the

petitioner's age is '16'. Hence, considering a disability of 50% as per

Ex.A-5, the compensation under the head of 'disability' comes to

Rs.10,75,200/- [Rs.1,34,400/- x 16 x 50%]. In so far as the loss of

income for a period of three months is concerned, this Court is

granting a sum of Rs.24,000/-.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

had undergone major surgery, and some steel rods were inserted.

After discharge from the hospital, he was shifted to his house, and for

that purpose, he must have spent some amount on transport.

Further, in view of the nature of injury, the petitioner must have

taken follow-up treatment for some time. Considering the nature of

the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the cost of living in 2008,

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJT 1298 (SC)

SP,J and RRN,J

the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,000/- towards transport.

However, the petitioner was admitted to the hospital twice and he

must have incurred additional expenses towards transportation. The

Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.1,000/-, which is meager, and

this Court is inclined to grant a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards transport

charges.

15. As regards to the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner,

the petitioner relied on Exs.A3 to A5 and Exs.A7 to A9 and examined

PW.2, who deposed that the petitioner was hospitalized for five days.

He sustained crush injury on his left arm, elbow and forearm with an

open comminuted humerus fracture with intraarticular extension

right with bone loss/closed radius fracture upper 3rd left. He

underwent surgery on 10.06.2008 for debridement and SSG done,

external fixation radius plus elbow done on 10.06.2008 and

discharged on 15.06.2008. PW.1 was readmitted on 18.09.2008 for

implant removal and was discharged on the same day. PW.3 deposed

that the petitioner was admitted to the hospital as an inpatient on

10.06.2008 and discharged on 15.06.2008 by paying the final bill

amount of Rs.1,16,088/- under Ex.A-7. The petitioner was readmitted

on 18.09.2008 and paid the amount of Rs.2,500/-, and was

discharged on the same day.

SP,J and RRN,J

16. The evidence of PW.3 shows that the petitioner paid an amount

of Rs.2,500/- as readmission charges, Rs.1,16,088/- towards the

final bill amount under Ex.A7 and the evidence of PW.4 shows that

the petitioner has paid a total bill amount of Rs.78,282/-. Insofar as

Exs.A-8 bills are concerned, the petitioner paid a total sum of

Rs.2,07,952/- under various bills on different dates under Ex.A-8.

Therefore, the said total comes to Rs.3,24,040/-. Accordingly, the

Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.3,25,000/-, which needs no

interference by this Court.

17. Therefore, the order dated 10.05.2013 passed by the Tribunal in

O.P.No.2567 of 2008 is modified as follows :-

S.No.       Particulars                      Amount


1.          Loss of earnings for         a        Rs.24,000/-
            period of three months
            (Rs.8,000/- x 3)
2.          Towards disability                   Rs.10,75,200/-

3.          Transportation charges                 Rs.3,000/-

4.          Medical and hospitalization          Rs.3,25,000/-
            expenses
          Total Compensation                     Rs.14,27,200/-

18. The Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest at 7.5% per

annum, which needs no interference from this Court.

SP,J and RRN,J

19. In the result, this M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed and the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from

Rs.3,69,500/- to Rs.14,27,200/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Twenty

Seven Thousand Two hundred Only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from

the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos. 1 and

2 are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest, after

giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a

period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. On such a deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw