Telangana High Court
Kancharla Suresh vs Narendra Kumar Veduruvada And Another on 20 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1729 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the
learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- The Court of Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in M.V.O.P.No.929 of 2012,
dated 30.04.2018, the claim petitioner in the above MVOP
preferred the present appeal seeking for enhancement of
compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioner filed a
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the injuries
sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on
01.03.2012. As per the claim petitioner, on 01.03.2012 at about
3.30 PM, while the petitioner along with his brother-in-law was
proceeding in an Auto bearing No.AP-28TC-6615 from Kukatpally
to Medak side and when reached near Ghafoor Service Centre,
Gagillapur Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Cyberabad, at that time,
one Eicher bearing No.AP-28A-9025 came in a high speed in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed the Auto from behind. As a
result, the petitioner and his brother-in-law sustained grievous
MGP,J
injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to NIMS
Hospital, Panjagutta and was admitted as inpatient. Police,
Dundigal Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.116 of 2012
under Section 337 IPC against the driver of Eicher bearing No.AP-
28A-9025. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the
petitioner suffered from 100% loss of income and hence filed a
petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- initially which
was subsequently enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- as per orders in
I.A.No.1272 of 2015, dated 27.03.2017 along with interest @ 12%
per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization
which is payable by Respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are the owner and
insurer of the crime vehicle.
4. Respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2-
Insurance Company filed its counter denying all the averments
made in the claim petition including, the manner of accident,
involvement of the crime vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the
driver of Eicher, age, occupation and income of the petitioner,
nature of injuries sustained to him and the amount incurred by
him. It is also contended that the driver of the said Eicher has no
valid driving license and Respondent No.1 wilfully handed over the
possession of vehicle to the driver of Eicher and contravened the
provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and hence, the Insurance
MGP,J
company is not liable to pay any compensation and that the
compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and prayed to
dismiss the claim against it.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had
framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting
injuries sustained by the petitioner-K.Suresh, due to
the rash and negligent driving of the Eicher bearing
No.AP-28A-9025 by its driver?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any
compensation and, if so, at what quantum and
what is the liability of the respondents?
(iii) To what relief?
6. Before the Tribunal, the claim petitioner himself was
examined as PW1, got examined PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to
A12 on their behalf. Respondent No.1 did not contest the case and
remained exparte. On behalf of 2nd respondent, no witness was
examined, but, however, Ex.B1-Copy of insurance policy was
marked.
7. After considering the evidence and documents available on
record, the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of
Rs.5,10,400/- as compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization. Dissatisfied
MGP,J
with the said compensation amount, the appellant/claim petitioner
has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
8. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant as well as the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent
No.2- Insurance company.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is
that though the appellant had proved his case by adducing cogent
and convincing evidence and by relying upon Exs.A1 to A12, but
the learned Tribunal without considering the same had awarded
meagre amount. He also contended that the learned Tribunal
ought to have considered the income of the appellant as
Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.4,000/- per month and further
contended that the learned Tribunal award meagre amounts on
various heads and hence prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing
the compensation amount.
10. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent-
Insurance Company argued that the learned Tribunal, after
considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation
for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.
11. Now, the point that emerges for consideration is,
MGP,J
Whether the order of the learned Tribunal requires
interference of this Court?
POINT:
12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
filed by both sides. The appellant, who was examined as PW1,
stated that when he, along with his brother Raju and his brother-
in-law were proceeding in an Auto bearing No.AP 28TC 6615
towards Medak side from Kukatpally, they met with an accident
due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Eicher bearing
No.AP 28A 9025. Based on a complaint, the Police, Dundigal Police
Station, registered a case in Crime No.116 of 2012 under Section
337 IPC and after conducting thorough investigation, filed charge
sheet against the driver of Eicher. Due to the said accident, the
petitioner along with his brother-in-law sustained grievous injuries
all over the body. In support of his contention, he got marked
Ex.A1-Certified Copy of FIR, Ex.A2-Certified copy of charge sheet,
Ex.A3-Certified copy of Medico Legal Record, Ex.A4-Discharge
summary issued by NIMS hospital, Ex.A5-Outpatent medical
record issued by NIMS, Ex.A6- OP card issued by NIMS, Ex.A7-
Bunch of medical bills, Ex.A8-OP ticket issued by Gandhi hospital,
Ex.A9-Bunch of medical bills, Ex.A10-medical prescriptions,
Ex.A11-X-ray films and Ex.A12-Disability certificate. Thus from
the evidence of PW1 coupled with documentary evidence under
MGP,J
Exs.A1 to A12, it is made clear that the appellant sustained
grievous injuries all over the body in an accident that occurred due
to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Eicher bearing
No.AP-28A-9025.
13. To prove about the injuries sustained by the appellant, he
got examined PW2, who is an Orthopaedic surgeon in Kondapur
Government Area Hospital and Member of Medical Board and who
deposed in his evidence that the petitioner approached him and
after examining the petitioner clinically and radiologically, he
assessed the disability @ 56%. He also stated that Ex.A3-injury
certificate issued by NIMS Hospital, shows that the petitioner
sustained closed Comminuted fracture and distal extension right
humerus; Olecranon fracture right; Fracture of first metacarpal
right without deficit, head injury, chest injury and other multiple
injuries with lacerations and abrasions throughout the body. He
also stated that due to the said disability, the petitioner cannot
perform his normal duties. In the cross-examination, he admitted
that he never treated the petitioner at any point of time, but he
assessed the disability based on SADARA, a web-based application
to measure the percentage of disability and denied the other
suggestions.
MGP,J
14. Though PWs 1 & 2 were cross-examined at length, nothing
worthy was elicited from them to disbelieve their evidence.
15. It is also noticed by this Court that there is variation in
respect of the age of the appellant wherein, the appellant himself
stated that he was 26 years old initially, but in the charge sheet it
was mentioned as 38 years, and again during the course of the
cross-examination, he stated that he was 41 years old. The learned
Tribunal has considered the age of the appellant mentioned during
the course of examination. This Court is of the considered opinion
that when there is variation of ages mentioned by the petitioner,
the age mentioned in the Disability Certificate issued by the
Medical Board under Ex.A12 can be taken into consideration as
the age mentioned in the Identity Card issued by Medical Board of
Area Hospital, Kondapur, being same, this Court is inclined to
consider the age of the appellant as 45 years.
16. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, the learned
Tribunal considered the monthly income of the appellant as
Rs.4,000/-. This Court, upon considering the date of accident,
occupation of the appellant and the disability sustained by him, is
inclined to fix the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.6,000/-.
Considering the age of the appellant at the time of accident as 45
years, if 25% is taken as future prospects to the established
MGP,J
income of the appellant as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others 1 then the future monthly income of the
appellant comes to Rs.7,500/- and Rs.90,000/- per annum. Since
the appellant was 45 years old at the time of the accident, the
appropriate multiplier is '14' as per the guidelines laid down by the
Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2 and
the disability sustained by the appellant is 56%. Therefore, the
total loss of income incurred by the appellant due to the said
disability comes to Rs.7,05,600/-(Rs.90000 x 14 x 56%). Apart
from this, the appellant is also awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/-
towards pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities;
Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment and
Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses, by the learned Tribunal which
this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Thus, in all,
the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.7,45,600/-.
17. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.5,10,400/- to
Rs.7,45,600/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by
2017 ACJ 2700
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
MGP,J
the respondents 1 & 2 within a period of one month from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant is
entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.
There shall be no order as to costs.
18. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Dt.20.02.2024
ysk
