Telangana High Court
Banavath Bikku vs Sri Y.Shankar on 21 February, 2024
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
M.A.C.M.A.No.878 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the injured claimant aggrieved by the award and
decree dated 04.12.2007 passed in O.P.No.1532 of 2003 on the file of the II
Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad, seeking
enhancement of compensation from Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to
Rs.3,00,000/- as claimed by him.
2. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act (for short "MV Act"), 1988. The case of the claimant was that he
was aged 30 years working as a mason, R/o.Wesley Nagar Thanda of Dichpally
Mandal, Nizamabad District. On 29.03.2022 at 09:00 AM while he was
returning to his village Wesley Nagar Thanda from Suddapally Village on foot
on the left side of the road and when reached near Ramadugu "T" Road near
Suddapally Village shivar, an auto bearing No.AP-25-T-9678 driven by its
driver with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit the petitioner
from his behind. Due to which, he sustained fractures of both bones of left leg,
deformity of left leg, fracture of left shoulder, fracture of ribs, lost three teeth
and other teeth became loosened, fracture of skull and other multiple and
grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was
Dr.GRR, J
macma_878_2008
shifted to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad, where he was
admitted as in-patient from 29.03.2002 to 26.04.2002 and underwent operation.
Steel rods were inserted to his left leg. After discharge from the Government
Hospital, he had taken treatment under private doctors and incurred expenses to
an extent of Rs.1,50,000/-. As such claimed compensation from respondents 1
and 2, the owner and insurer of the auto bearing No.AP-25-T-9678.
3. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.
4. The respondent No.2 filed counter.
5. The respondent No.2 called for strict proof of the petition averments and
contended that the compensation claimed was excessive and arbitrary.
6. The Tribunal after framing the issues caused enquiry.
7. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and got examined the Civil
Assistant Surgeon of District Hospital, Nizamabad as PW.2 and got marked
Exs.A1 to A6 and Exs.X1 and X2 on his behalf.
8. The respondent No.2 failed to adduce any oral evidence, but got filed the
copy of the insurance policy as Ex.B1.
9. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the
Tribunal held that the claimant sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent
Dr.GRR, J
macma_878_2008
driving of the auto by its driver, as such the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
10. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal on considering
the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the exhibits marked under Ex.A1 to A6 and
Exs.X1 and X2, awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards "pain and
suffering", Rs.3,000/- towards transportation and Rs.2,000/- towards extra
nourishment. In total awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- with 7.5% interest per
annum.
11. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the claimant preferred this
appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of PWs.1
and 2 properly and the documents marked under Exs.A3 to A6 and Exs.X1 and
X2. The Tribunal failed to grant compensation under all heads for the injuries
sustained by the claimant. The Tribunal erred in not awarding proper amount
towards the expenditure incurred by the claimant towards his treatment and
future medical expenses, no amount was awarded towards loss of earnings and
the disability sustained by the claimant and prayed to enhance the
compensation.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant - claimant and the learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.
Dr.GRR, J
macma_878_2008
13. Now the point for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just and reasonable or whether it requires any interference and
any enhancement.
14. Perused the record.
15. PW.1 stated in his evidence that he sustained fracture of left leg, injury to
his left side ribs, he lost three teeth and other teeth also loosened. An operation
was performed on his left leg, rods were inserted. He was admitted as in-patient
in Government Hospital in Nizamabad for a period of one month and even after
his discharge from the hospital he was taking medicines regularly and incurred
expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his treatment.
16. He stated that he was doing masonry work as well as agricultural work
and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. He had three acres of land cultivating
vegetables and paddy and was earning Rs.20,000/- per each crop and used to
raise two crops in a year. Due to the accident, he was unable to do any work,
due to the injuries he lost his earning power and that he also sustained
permanent disability.
17. He got examined the Civil Assistant Surgeon of District Head Quarter
Hospital, Nizamabad as PW.2. PW.2 stated that on 29.03.2002 at 11:30 AM, he
examined the petitioner who came to Government Hospital, Nizamabad with
injuries and found i) tenderness and deformity on left leg, ii) loss of three lower
Dr.GRR, J
macma_878_2008
incisors, iii) an abrasion over left shoulder and iv) tenderness over abdomen.
He stated that the injuries 1 and 2 were grievous and the other injuries were
simple in nature. The X-rays would reveal that the petitioner sustained fracture
of both bones of left leg. He admitted Ex.A3 as the injury certificate issued by
him.
18. Thus, though PW.1 stated that he sustained permanent disability, PW.2
had not stated about any permanent disability sustained by the claimant. No
certificate issued by the Medical Board assessing the disability was filed by the
claimant. As the evidence of PW.2 is silent about permanent disability, the
Tribunal had not erred in not awarding any amount towards permanent
disability. However, considering the evidence of PW.2, as the claimant had
sustained fracture of both bones of left leg and lost three lower incisors, which
were grievous in nature, an amount of Rs.30,000/- can be awarded towards
"pain and suffering".
19. Considering the fracture injuries sustained to the left leg of the claimant,
as the claimant might have unable to attend to his masonry work or agricultural
work for a period of five to six months, the Tribunal ought to have awarded
some amount towards loss of income. But no amount was awarded by the
Tribunal under this head. As such, the same would need to be considered.
Though, no evidence was adduced by the claimant in proof of his income, an
Dr.GRR, J
macma_878_2008
amount of Rs.4,500/- can be taken as his income per month as per the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sri Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1 . As such the loss of
earnings can be calculated for a period of six months as Rs.4,500/- x 6 =
Rs.27,000/-.
20. Though the petitioner had taken treatment in a Government Hospital, as
he might have incurred some amount towards purchase of medicines and he
might also require some amount towards future medical expenses for removal
of rods, it is considered fit to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- under this head.
21. As the claimant was admitted as in-patient for a period of one month in a
Government Hospital and after his discharge from the hospital also, as some of
the family members might have attended to him by leaving their work, it is
considered fit to award an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges. The
amount awarded towards transportation and extra nourishment awarded by the
Tribunal is also considered as inadequate and the same need to be enhanced. As
such, it is considered fit to award an amount of Rs.5,000/- each under these
heads.
22. Hence, the compensation entitled by the appellant - claimant under
various heads is as follows:
(2011) 13 SCC 236
Dr.GRR, J
macma_878_2008
S. No. Heads Compensation
1. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
2. Loss of income for a period of a six Rs.27,000/-
months
3. Medical expenses including future Rs.10,000/-
medical expenses
4. Attendant charges Rs.5,000/-
5. Transportation Rs.5,000/-
6. Extra nourishment Rs.5,000/-
Total: Rs.82,000/-
23. As such, the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.82,000/- which is
considered as just and reasonable.
24. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part enhancing the compensation
from Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.82,000/- with interest @ 7.5 %
per annum on the enhanced amount. The respondent No.2 - Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the said amount after deducting the amount
deposited if any earlier within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant - claimant is
permitted to withdraw the same. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal if any,
shall stand closed.
_____________________
Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J
Dated: 21st February, 2024
Nsk.
