Telangana High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Sunki Mangamma on 30 August, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.856 & 683 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These appeals are filed against the Order dated
15.11.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.121 of 2017 passed by the learned
Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District
Judge), Suryapet.
2. The petition vide M.V.O.P.No.121 of 2017 was filed by one
Sunki Mangamma, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for
the injuries sustained by her in a road accident occurred on
15.07.2016. She examined herself as P.W.1 and also got
examined P.Ws.2 to 6 on her behalf and marked Exs.A1 to A10.
D.W.1 was examined on behalf of the respondents and marked
Exs.B1 on their behalf and also marked Ex.C1. The trial Court
after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record,
directed the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.13,26,829/- @
7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till
realization, to the injured. Aggrieved by the said Order,
petitioner therein preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.856 of 2023, seeking
to enhance the compensation amount and respondent
No.3/Insurance Company has also preferred an appeal in
M.A.C.M.A.No.683 of 2023, seeking to set aside the Order of the
trial Court.
3. Parties herein are referred as petitioner and respondents
as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.07.2016,
petitioner boarded an auto bearing No.TS 05 UA 9634, in Kodad
to go to her village Akupamula. When the auto reached
outskirts of Akupamula Village, the driver of the auto driven it
in rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control
over it, due to which auto turned turtle. As a result, petitioner
sustained several injuries.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/injured mainly
contended that petitioner was aged about 41 years, working as
a Coolie and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. She was not in a
position to drive her two wheeler vehicle. She has to take the
help of assistant to drop and pick up her from the school every
day. There was both functional and permanent disability. She
has spent huge amounts for medicines and future prospects
were not considered and thus more 25% amount has to be
granted apart from the compensation granted by the trial Court.
Therefore, requested the Court to enhance the compensation
amount under different heads.
6. The learned Counsel for respondent No.3/insurance
Company mainly contended that no eye witness was examined
to prove the accident. P.W.4, who is physiotherapist had issued
medical bills to the extent of Rs.1,67,250/-, which is exorbitant.
P.W.5-Doctor who treated the petitioner had also issued medical
bills to the extent of Rs.5,97,941/- even without the operation
and they are not supported by prescriptions and pathology
reports, etc., disability certificate issued by P.W.6 was also on
higher side. As per the evidence of R.W.1, the disability could be
only 26% as per the Gazette Notification, but the same was not
considered by the trial Court. He also requested to modify the
rate of interest granted by the trial Court from 7.5% to 6% per
annum.
7. As the present appeals are preferred raising the quantum
dispute, this Court need not go into the other aspects.
8. Perusal of the record shows that petitioner has sustained
Left wrist degloving injury, Ulna Fracture Distal 1/3rd, Radial
Stuloid Fracture, Bilteral body of Zygoma Fracture with left
parasymphysis, which are grievous in nature and laceration
over the left wrist and multiple abrasions on left hand and left
knee, which are simple in nature. The trial Court considering
the nature of injuries rightly granted compensation under
various heads. The contention of the petitioner regarding future
prospects is only to be considered and thus this Court finds
that it is just and reasonable to grant an additional amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards future prospects and the other amounts
granted by the trial Court under different heads holds good and
needs no interference.
9. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.683 of 2023 is dismissed and
M.A.C.M.A.No.856 of 2023 is partly allowed enhancing the
compensation amount granted by the trial Court from
Rs.13,26,829/- to Rs.14,26,829/- with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date
of realization. Though all respondents are jointly and severally
responsible to pay compensation, respondent No.3/insurance
Company is directed to deposit the entire amount within a
period of one month from the date of this Judgment. On such
deposit, appellant/petitioner is permitted to withdraw the
said amount along with interest accrued on it. There shall
be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 30.08.2024
tri
