Telangana High Court
Shaik Ghouse, Nizamabad vs Shaik Jabbar, Nizamabad And Another on 13 February, 2024
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1946 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the injured claimant aggrieved by the
judgment and decree dated 10.08.2007 passed in O.P. No.25 of 2003
by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge
(Fast Track Court), Nizamabad, seeking enhancement of
compensation.
2. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the
injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. He stated that he
was a resident of Gowtham Nagar, Nizamabad Town, aged 24 years,
he was doing business and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by the
date of the accident. On 03.08.2002 at about 7.00 AM, while he along
with others was travelling in a Jeep bearing No.AP 25U 1336 from
Bhainsa to Nizamabad and when reached Mittapoor village shivar, the
driver of the jeep drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with
high speed, lost control over the vehicle, due to which the jeep turned
turtle and the claimant, sustained fractures and other injuries. A case in
Crime No.104 of 2002 under Section 337 IPC was registered by the
Dr.GRR,J
Navipet Police against the driver of the jeep bearing No. AP 25U 1336.
The claimant claimed compensation from the respondents 1 and 2 - the
owner and insurer of the said jeep.
3. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte.
4. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter
and called for strict proof of the petition averments.
5. The Tribunal, after framing the issues, conducted enquiry.
The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and got examined the
Orthopedic Surgeon, who treated him, as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A1
to A3 in support of his contention. The respondent No.2 failed to
adduce any oral evidence, but a copy of the policy was marked as
Ex.B1.
6. The Tribunal, on considering the oral and documentary
evidence on record, held that the accident was due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep bearing No. AP 25U 1336
and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay
the compensation to the claimant.
7. With regard to the quantum of compensation, as no X-
rays were filed, the Tribunal considered the injuries sustained by the
Dr.GRR,J
claimant as simple injuries and awarded an amount of Rs.9,000/-
towards the injuries sustained by the claimant, Rs.1,000/- towards pain
and suffering, Rs.1,000/- towards treatment expenses, Rs.500/- towards
transportation and Rs.500/- towards extra nourishment. Thus, in all,
the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.12,000/- with interest at 7.5%
per annum from the date of petition till realization.
8. Aggrieved by the said award of the Tribunal, the claimant
preferred this appeal contending that the enquiry before the Tribunal
was summary in nature, hence, strict proof of evidence was not
required. The Tribunal failed to award compensation under all the
heads and prayed to modify the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2007.
9. Heard Sri K. Sarala Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for
the appellant-claimant and Sri R. Sheetal Kumar, learned counsel for
the respondent No.2-Insurance company.
10. Perused the record. The record would disclose that the
claimant examined himself as PW.1. He stated that immediately after
the accident, he was shifted to the hospital of Dr.Narsing Rao,
Nizamabad and was treated as inpatient for two days by applying POP
to his left hand and leg injury. Thereafter, he took treatment with Dr.
Dr.GRR,J
Bandewar of Nanded and incurred an expenditure of Rs.60,000/- to
70,000/-. Prior to the accident he was doing general business and was
earning Rs.3,000/- to Rs.3,500/- per month. On account of the injuries,
he incurred disability and was not able to do any business and his
earnings were affected. He got examined the consultant Orthopedic
Surgeon Dr. T. Narsing Rao, who treated him at Nizamabd as PW.2.
11. PW.2 stated that the claimant came to his hospital with
injuries on 03.08.2002. On examination, he found that the claimant
sustained fracture of both bones of left forearm, fracture of clavicle of
the left ankle, fracture of left clavicle. The injuries were grievous in
nature. He advised X-rays for the said injuries.
12. Thus, as per the evidence of PW.2, the claimant sustained
three fracture injuries, one-fracture of both bones of left forearm,
fracture of left ankle and fracture of left clavicle. The wound
certificate, marked under Ex.A3 would disclose the above injuries and
the nature of injuries were mentioned as grievous.
13. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 was silent about any
permanent disability sustained by the claimant due to the above
injuries. As such, the multiplier method is not applicable and loss of
Dr.GRR,J
future income need not be taken. No amount is awarded under the
head 'permanent disability'. But, considering the evidence of PW.2,
which was corroborated by Ex.A3, the Tribunal ought to have awarded
amount towards pain and suffering and under other heads. As the
Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.9,000/- towards injuries
considering them as simple in nature, the same needs to be enhanced.
Considering that the claimant sustained three fracture injuries, it is
considered appropriate to award an amount of Rs.60,000/- under this
head. The claimant failed to file any medical bills, but, however, as he
might have incurred some amount towards his treatment, it is
considered fit to award an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards his medical
expenses (current and future).
14. The claimant contended that he was earning Rs.10,000/-
per month. But, in the absence of any evidence, the same can be
considered as Rs.4,500/- per month as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1 . Considering the three
fracture injuries sustained by him, the loss of income can be calculated
for a period of six months. As such the claimant is entitled to an
(2011) 13 SCC 236
Dr.GRR,J
amount of Rs.27,000/- (Rs.4,500/- x 6) towards loss of income during
the period of his treatment. As no amount was awarded towards
attendant charges and some of his family members might have
attended him leaving their work, it is considered fit to award an
amount of Rs.5,000/- under this head. The amounts awarded towards
transportation and extra nourishment at Rs.500/- each were very
meager. Hence, it is considered fit to enhance the same to Rs.2,000/-
each under these heads. As such, the compensation entitled by the
claimant under various heads is considered as follows:
Pain and suffering :Rs.60,000/-
Medical expenses
(current and future) :Rs.15,000/-
Loss of income :Rs.27,000/-
Attendant charges :Rs. 5,000/-
Transportation :Rs. 2,000/-
Extra nourishment :Rs. 2,000/-
-----------------
Total : Rs.1,11,000/-
------------------
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the
compensation from Rs.12,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal to
Rs.1,11,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum on the enhanced
amount. The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is directed to
Dr.GRR,J
deposit the said amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount
deposited, if any. On such deposit, the appellant - claimant is
permitted to withdraw the entire amount.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________
Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J
February 13, 2024.
KTL
