Telangana High Court
Krishna, Adilabad Dist vs M. Naresh, Adilaba District And Ano 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.2580 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the injured claimant aggrieved by the judgment
and decree dated 01.05.2009 passed in O.P.No.416 of 2005 on the file of the
Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "The Tribunal") - cum -
I Additional District Judge, Adilabad, seeking enhancement of compensation
from Rs.1,39,986/- as awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.3,25,000/- as claimed by
him.
2. The case of the claimant was that he filed a claim petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- for
the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. On 28.02.2005 at
about 10:30 hours, while the claimant along with others was travelling in a jeep
bearing No.AP-1-T-6081 from Nirmal to Narsapur and when reached near
Sirgapur Village, the driver of the jeep drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner with high speed, due to which the jeep turned turtle and he along with
other inmates of the jeep sustained injuries. After the accident, he was shifted
to Government Hospital, Nirmal and after first-aid, he had taken treatment at
Amrutha Laxmi Multi Speciality Hospital, Nizamabad for a period of one
month and was discharged on 21.03.2005. The Police Narsapur registered a
Dr.GRR, J
macma_2580_2011
case in Crime No.18 of 2005 under Section 337 and 338 of IPC against the
driver of the jeep bearing No.AP-1-T-6081.
3. The claimant stated that he was aged 22 years and was doing business.
He was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by the date of the accident. Due to the
accident, he was bed-ridden for five months, as such claimed compensation
from respondents 1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the jeep bearing No.AP-1-T-
6081.
4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.
5. The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company filed counter and called for
strict proof of the petition averments and contended that the compensation
claimed was excessive and arbitrary.
6. The Tribunal framed the issues and caused enquiry.
7. The injured claimant examined himself as PW.1 and got examined the
doctors who treated him as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A13 . The
respondent No.2 failed to adduce any evidence, but got filed the copy of the
Insurance Policy as Ex.B1.
8. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the
Tribunal opined that the claimant sustained injuries due to the rash and
Dr.GRR, J
macma_2580_2011
negligent driving of the driver of the jeep, as such, held the respondents 1 and 2
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
9. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considered
that the claimant sustained four (04) grievous injuries and awarded an amount
of Rs.7,500/- for each injury and in total awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/-
towards "pain and suffering", Rs.79,986/- towards medical expenses,
Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of
earnings, Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.5,000/- towards
transportation. In total, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,39,986/-.
10. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the claimant preferred this
appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in disbelieving the medical
expenditure that the appellant incurred an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and awarded
only an amount of Rs.79,986/-. The Tribunal erred in disbelieving the evidence
of PW.3, who categorically stated that the claimant required another operation
in future. The amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded towards grievous injuries was
meager. No amounts were awarded towards attendant charges and extra-
nourishment and prayed to enhance the compensation.
11. Heard Sri A.Jagan, learned counsel for the appellant - claimant and
Smt.P.Satya Manjula for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.
Dr.GRR, J
macma_2580_2011
12. Now the point for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just and reasonable or needs any enhancement?
13. The claimant examined himself as PW.1. PW.1 stated that he sustained
fracture of left clavicle, fracture of 2nd to 6th ribs besides injuries to other parts
of the body. He also stated that he sustained extra axial hematoma at left
temporo parietal region, hemorrhagic contusion on right temporo parietal
region, hair line fracture, hematoma at left temporal bone and cerebral edema.
He underwent clinical tests and X-rays and incurred an expenditure of
Rs.2,00,000/-. He further stated that he was un-conscious for a period of three
(03) weeks and was on bed for a period of one year.
14. He got examined the doctors, who treated him at Amrutha Laxmi Multi
Speciality Hospital as PWs.2 and 3. PW.2 was an orthopedic surgeon as well
as Medical Officer of Amrutha Laxmi Multi Speciality Hospital at Nizamabad.
PW.2 stated that the petitioner was admitted in their hospital on 28.02.2005. He
was admitted as in-patient for a period of 23 days and was discharged on
21.03.2005. A neuro-surgeon operated on the left side of brain and an ENT
specialist treated the petitioner conservatively. He further stated that the
claimant required plastic surgery treatment for his left pinna, since there was
disfiguration.
Dr.GRR, J
macma_2580_2011
15. PW.3 was a Neuro-Surgeon at Amrutha Laxmi Multi Speciality Hospital.
He stated that he found head injury with extra parietal hematoma and a surgery
was performed on the injured claimant on 28.02.2005. The CT-scan report had
shown a linear fracture of left temporal bone, which was treated conservatively.
16. The documents marked under Ex.A2, the injury certificate would disclose
that the claimant sustained deformity of left clavicle, abrasion over the left side
of chest and the X-rays would show fracture of 2nd to 6th ribs on left side with
hematoma and a wound laceration on posterior, amputation of left pinna and
another injury on the left temporal region in the shape of abrasion. The
CT-scan of brain would show extra dural hematoma with contusion on the right
temporal lobe of brain.
17. Thus, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and the documents marked under
Exs.A2, A3, A7 and A10 to A13 would disclose that the claimant sustained four
fractures including fracture of bones, disfiguration, hair line fracture of temporal
region and amputation of pinna. An operation was conducted on him on
28.02.2005. Due to the amputation of left pinna, his face was disfigured and as
per the evidence of PW.2, a plastic surgery was required in view of
disfiguration of pinna. The evidence of PW.2 would disclose that the claimant
was unable to drive. The claimant was in un-conscious condition in the hospital
for a period of two weeks as per his evidence and could not attend to his work
Dr.GRR, J
macma_2580_2011
for more than one year. The petitioner stated that he was aged 22 years and was
earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing business. Though, no evidence was
adduced to show the nature of business done by the claimant or the amount
earned by him, the same can be considered as Rs.4,500/- per month even in the
absence of evidence, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Sri Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Limited 1 and the loss of earnings can be calculated for a
period of one year. As such, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.4,500/-
x 12 = Rs.54,000/-. As the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 did not disclose that the
petitioner sustained any permanent disability, the Tribunal rightly had not
awarded any amount towards permanent disability.
18. However, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, which would
disclose that he sustained fracture to his left temporal bone i.e. head injury,
which was stated to have been treated conservatively and there was extra dural
hematoma and contusions and he also sustained fracture of left clavicle,
disfiguration, amputation of pinna, hair line fracture of temporal region, it is
considered fit to award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards "pain and suffering"
sustained by the claimant due to these injuries.
19. Considering the documents marked under Ex.A3 to A8 and A11, the
Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.79,986/- towards medical expenses, but the
(2011) 13 SCC 236
Dr.GRR, J
macma_2580_2011
Tribunal had not accepted the amount shown under Ex.A9, as the said bill was
dated 04.07.2008 during the pendency of the trial. The Tribunal ought to have
considered the said bill also, as it was the amount incurred by the claimant
towards the injuries sustained by him due to the accident. As the evidence of
PW.2 also would disclose that the petitioner required plastic surgery in future to
avoid disfiguration due to the amputation of pinna and that it would require
Rs.40,000/-, it is considered fit to award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards
medical expenses incurred by the claimant and Rs.40,000/- towards future
medical expenses required by him.
20. Considering that the petitioner was admitted as in-patient in a private
hospital for a period of almost one month and subsequently after his discharge
also, some of his family members might have attended to him by leaving their
work, it is considered fit to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant
charges. As the petitioner might have spent amount towards extra-nutritious
diet taken by him during the period of his recovery, and towards transportation
"to and fro" to the hospital and towards his follow-up treatment, it is considered
fit to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nutritious diet and
Rs.10,000/- towards transportation.
21. Hence, the compensation entitled by the appellant - claimant under
various heads is as follows:
Dr.GRR, J
macma_2580_2011
S. No. Heads Compensation
1. Pain and Suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
2. Loss of earnings Rs.54,000/-
3. Medical expenses Rs.1,00,000/-
4. Future Medical expenses Rs.40,000/-
5. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-
6. Extra Nourishment Rs.10,000/-
7. Transportation Rs.10,000/-
Total: Rs.3,24,000/-
22. As such, the appellant - claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.3,24,000/-
towards compensation, which is considered as just and reasonable.
23. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed enhancing the compensation
from Rs.1,39,986/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.3,24,000/- 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
Date: 21st February, 2024
Nsk.
