Telangana High Court
K. Rama Krishna Rao vs S. Ganapathi Major on 12 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY THE NINETH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
MACMA.NOs. 523 AND 686 OF 2008
Between: MACMA.No. 523 OF 2008
K. Ramakrishna Rao ... Appellant
V/s.
S.Ganapathi & Anr. ... Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant : Smt. B.Roja Ramani
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : None appeared
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Somanchi Venkateswarlu
SC for United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
Between: MACMA.No. 686 OF 2008
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
Secunderabad ... Appellant-Respondent No.2
V/s.
K.Ramakrishna Rao & Anr. ... Respondent No.2-Respondent No.1
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Somanchi Venkateswarlu
SC for United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : Smt.B.Roja Ramani for R-1
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : None appeared
The Court made the following : (Common Judgment follows next page)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
MACMA.NOs. 523 AND 686 OF 2008
COMMON JUDGMENT :
MACMA.No. 523 of 2008 is filed by the injured-claimant and
MACMA.No. 686 of 2008 is filed by the United India Insurance Company
Limited against the award and decree dated 05-11-2007 passed in OP.No.
2486 of 2005 by the X-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. The appellant in MACMA.No. 523 of 2008 is the injured-claimant,
Mr. K. Rama Krishna Rao, who was aged about 55 years on the date of
accident. He received injuries in the motor vehicle accident occurred on
15-6-2005 at about 1730 hours due to involvement of a lorry bearing No.
AP-10V-0513. The learned Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that the
accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the above said
lorry and held that the owner of the lorry and its insurer are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation, which finding having not been
appealed against by the Insurance Company became final.
3. Both the appeals relate to quantum of compensation. The
injured-claimant filed claim-petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000=00
against which an amount of Rs.1,99,911=00 was granted by the learned
Claims Tribunal by its award dated 05-1-2007 together with costs and
interest.
4. In MACMA.No. 523 of 2008 the appellant-claimant contends that
the amount granted is not adequate and whereas the Insurance Company
in MACMA.No. 686 of 2008 contends that the compensation amount
granted by the Claims Tribunal being on higher side, the same is liable to be
reduced.
5. Heard Smt. Roza Ramani, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-claimant and Sri T.Mahender Rao, the learned standing counsel
for the respondent-Insurance Company.
6. Perused the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal and
the material available on record.
7. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned
Claims Tribunal held that the appellant-injured received four fracture injuries
in the accident and accordingly granted an amount of 60,000=00 (i.e.,
Rs.15,000 x 4 = 60,000), which amount being reasonable need not be
interfered with in this appeal. According to the appellant-injured, he was
running plastic industry in the name and style M/s. Hyderabad Plastic
Industry at Kukkatpally, Hyderabad and was earning Rs.12,500=00 per
month. He substantiated his version by filing Income-tax returns and
registration certificate issued by the Commercial Tax Department, which
are marked as Exs.A-15 to A-18. Therefore, the fact that he was running
the plastic industry cannot be disputed.
8. The learned Claims Tribunal considering the arguments
submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-injured before it and
basing on the medical bills awarded Rs.17,489=00 towards medical
expenses. It was conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant-
claimant that in the course of arguments before the Claims Tribunal that
though the medical bills are for an amount of Rs.43,314-00, the claimant
claimed an amount of Rs.7,242-00 which the difference between the
amount claimed and settled under the medical claim by the Insurance
Company and also an amount of Rs.10,247-00 which is under Ex.A-7.
Basing on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-
claimant, the learned Claims Tribunal granted Rs.17,489/- but Ex.A-2
medical bills filed by the appellant-claimant reveal that he had spent
Rs.43,314=00 towards medical expenses. But the learned Claims Tribunal
basing on the above submission made by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant-claimant before it awarded only Rs.17,489-00.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant relied
upon a judgment in HELLEN C. REBELLO AND ORS V/s. MAHARASHTRA
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER , wherein it has
been laid down that "the amount received as reimbursement under
medical claim policy for which the claimant had been paying
premium cannot be deducted. Since the compensation payable
under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory and the amount payable
under the Life Insurance Policy is contractual".
10. In this case, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to
have granted the amount under Exs.A-7 and A-21 i.e., Rs.10,247=00 +
Rs.43,314=00 = Rs.53,561=00 towards medical expenses. In this appeal,
therefore, an amount of Rs.53,561=00 is granted towards medical
expenses.
11. The learned Claims Tribunal recorded a specific finding that in
the affidavit filed in the course of chief examination there is no mention
about sustaining any permanent disability and whereas the theory of the
appellant-injured sustaining permanent disability was developed in the
course of evidence of doctor - PW-3. PW-3 orally assessed the disability at
15%. Having held so, the learned Claims Tribunal on its own arrived the
disability sustained by the appellant-injured at 10% and computed
compensation basing on multiplier method and awarded an amount of
Rs.83,936=00 towards permanent disability. According to me, the
approach adopted by the learned Claims Tribunal is not correct and the
appellant-claimant is not entitled for any amount towards permanent
disability. Since the appellant-claimant has not stated in his chief
examination about permanent disability and no disability certificate is
produced by him, in MACMA.No.523 of 2008, the appellant is not entitled
for any amount towards permanent disability as he failed to prove the
permanent disability. However, the learned Claims Tribunal considering the
period of hospitalization of the appellant-claimant, awarded an amount of
Rs.17,486-00 towards loss of past earnings which being reasonable and
based on evidence adduced by the claimant-injured need not be interfered
with. The learned Claims Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000=00
towards medical expenses and Rs.2,000=00 towards extra nourishment
and these amounts are reasonable and need not be interfered with. The
amount of Rs.1,000=00 granted towards transport charges also needs no
interference. The learned Claims Tribunal considering the evidence of PW-
2 granted Rs.8000=00 towards damages for the Bajaj four strokes two
wheeler and the said amount being based on evidence, requires no
interference in this appeal. The learned Claims Tribunal, however, did not
grant any amount towards pain and suffering. Therefore, an amount of
Rs.15,000=00 can be granted towards pain and suffering. Thus, in all an
amount of Rs.,1,34,647=00 is granted to the appellant-injured.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation granted by award
dated 05-11-2007 passed in OP.No.2486 of 2005 is reduced from
Rs.1,99,911=00 to Rs.1,34,647=00. Consequently, MACMA.No. 523 of
2008 filed by the appellant-claimant is dismissed. MACMA.686 of 2008
filed by the Insurance Company is allowed. There shall be no order as to
costs in both the appeals.
_______________________
JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
09-03-2012
IsL
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R . KANTHA RAO
MACMA.NOs. 523 AND 686 OF 2008
COMMON JUDGMENT
Date: 09-03-2012
Court Master: I s L
Computer No.43
) 1999 ACJ-10
