Telangana High Court
Guniganti Gurumurt vs Shaik Mubarak on 5 February, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.661 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel Sri P.Chandra Mouli for the
appellant/claimant and the learned counsel Sri A.Ramakrishna
Reddy for insurance company for the respondent no.2.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant
dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.2850 of 2017,
dated 28.11.2022 and thereby seeking for enhancement of
compensation. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been
referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
3.1. On 21.04.2017 at 7.00 a.m., while the petitioner was
proceeding as rider along with a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing
registration No.TS-07-ET-1762 from Police lane towards Pattigadda
Railway Station and when they reached Mody Ford Show-room
opposite Begumpet, Hyderabad, the driver of Tipper lorry bearing
registration No.TS-10-UA-2950 proceeding from Paradise side
LNA,J
driven the same in rash and negligent manner in high speed, lost
control over the lorry and dashed the petitioner's motorcycle. As a
result, both the riders fell down on the road along with the
motorcycle. As a result, petitioner sustained multiple fracture
injuries all over the body and was taken to Gandhi Hospital,
Secunderabad, treated as an inpatient and then shifted to Raksha
Multi Specialty Hospitals, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, for better
treatment. The petitioner was treated as an inpatient from
22.04.2017 and underwent surgery on 23.04.2017 and was
discharged on 29.04.2017. The petitioner pleaded that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry
bearing registration No.TS-10-UA-2950 and that there is no
negligence on his part.
3.2. The Police, Begumpet P.S. registered a case in Crime No.120
of 2017 U/s.338 of IPC against the driver of the lorry.
3.3. The petitioner suffered multiple fracture injuries consisting
of fracture of left shoulder, fracture of left ribs, deep laceration (3
places), head injury, face injury and multiple injuries all over the
body. The petitioner contended that he is a skilled worker working
as a driver with income of more than Rs.15,000/- per month. Due
LNA,J
to the injuries sustained by petitioner in the accident, he is unable
to do the driving job and lost his source of income for the
remaining part of the life. The petitioner and his family are
subjected to financial hardship and mental agony and they are
unable to meet the day to day expenses. The petitioner is the only
earning member and his hospitalization is causing hardship to the
petitioner and his family. The petitioner is the only earning
member of the family and his family members are dependent on
him for their maintenance. The petitioner at the age of 20 years
has become permanently disabled, is bed-ridden and is paying
attendant charges to do day-to-day activities.
3.4. The petitioner contended that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.3, who was
driving the crime vehicle, the respondent No.1 is the registered
owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurance company.
Therefore, the petitioner sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-
with interest @ 12% per annum.
4. The respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex parte. The
respondent No.2-insurance company filed counter denying the
narration of the petitioner with respect to the manner of
LNA,J
occurrence of accident, the age, income and avocation of the
petitioner. The respondent No.2 admitted providing insurance
coverage to the lorry involved in the accident. Further, the
respondent No.2 denied rash and negligent driving on the part of
the driver of the lorry. It is contended that respondent no.1 did not
inform the insurance company about the accident, particulars of
policy, date, time, place of offence, particulars of driving license of
the driver and therefore, pleaded violation of Section 134(c) of the
MV Act and finally, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the
following issues:
1) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred
resulting in injuries to the petitioner, G.Gurumurt
due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing
No.TS-10-UA- 2950 by its driver?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation,
if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the
respondents?
3) To what relief?
6. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the appellant-
injured, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were
LNA,J
marked. The respondents did not examine any witness and did not
mark any document on their behalf.
7. 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
offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.6,70,400/- towards
compensation to the petitioner payable by the respondent Nos.1 to
3 jointly and severally with costs and interest @ 7% p.a. from the
date of the petition till the date of realization.
8. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel
for appellant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have granted
the compensation as prayed due to grievous injuries sustained by
the appellant. He further submitted that Tribunal erred in fixing
monthly income of the appellant as Rs.8,000/-, and in fact,
appellant was hale and healthy and was aged about 20 years and
was skilled person being driver on which he would earn more than
Rs.15,000/- per month. He submitted that Tribunal erred in not
accepting functional disability @ 100% as per the evidence and
also not awarding any amount towards future prospects of the
disability. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in
LNA,J
awarding meager amounts towards transportation, extra
nourishment, pain and suffering etc. and finally, prayed for
enhancement of compensation.
9 The learned counsel for the insurance company submitted
that the Tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation towards
injuries sustained by the claimant and the grounds raised by the
appellant are untenable and no case is made out warranting
interference by this Court with the impugned award passed by the
Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Consideration:
10. With regard to the main contention of learned counsel for
appellant that Tribunal failed to award compensation towards
100% functional disability, the Tribunal had considered the
evidence of P.W.2-Dr.Ch.Sulapani, who treated the appellant and
the material placed on record. According to him, the appellant
suffered 30% disability and to that effect, he issued Ex.A6-
Disability Certificate; that due to left shoulder fracture and left rib
fractures, P.W.2 stated that earning capacity would be reduced by
70%. However, the Tribunal held that since the appellant is still
young age and capable of switching to other modes of earning
LNA,J
other than driving and therefore, there is no need to take the
functional disability as 70%. In view of the above, in considered
opinion of this Court, the Tribunal had rightly awarded the
compensation towards disability and needs no interference by this
Court.
11. Insofar as the monthly income of the deceased is concerned,
the Tribunal on taking into consideration Ex.A2-charge sheet, as
per which, the deceased was a driver, had assessed the notional
income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. The contention
of the learned counsel for appellant is that the appellant was hale
and healthy and was aged only 20 years and was skilled person
being driver, on which he was earning more than a sum of
Rs.15,000/- per month prior to the multiple fracture injuries
sustained by him in a road accident.
12. In view of the above, in considered opinion of this Court, the
monthly income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.10,000/- in
the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, the age
and profession, the period of accident, the inflation, devaluation of
rupee, cost of living etc., and therefore, the monthly income of the
deceased is liable to be modified accordingly.
LNA,J
13. The other contentions raised by the learned counsel for
appellant with regard to awarding of compensation on other
counts, needs no interference by this Court since the Tribunal had
rightly assessed and awarded the amount on each count.
Conclusion:
14. In view of the above discussion, the compensation amount is
recalculated as under:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Loss of income Rs.6,48,000/-
(Rs.10,000/- x 12 x 18 x 30%)
2 Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
3 Medical Bills Rs.87,000/-
4 Extra nourishment Rs.10,000/-
5 Transportation Rs. 5,000/-
Total compensation to be Rs.8,00,000/-
paid:
15. In the result, Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned
award passed by the Tribunal insofar as compensation amount is
concerned, is modified enhancing the compensation amount from
Rs.6,70,400/- to Rs.8,00,000/-, which shall carry interest at the
rate awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of the claim petition
LNA,J
till the date of realization. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are
directed to deposit the above compensation amount within a period
of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such
deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire
compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date: 05.02.2024
kkm
