Telangana High Court
E.Bharath Kumar Reddy vs K.Gopi Singh And Anr 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.2282 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the injured claimant aggrieved by the award and
decree dated 01.09.2007 in O.P.No.720 of 2005 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (for short "The Tribunal") - cum - I Additional District Judge,
Mahabubnagar, seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.21,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.1,50,000/- as claimed by him.
2. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries
sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident on 25.05.2005. As per the
claimant, he was aged 21 years, he was a student of final year engineering in
Sri Nandaram College of Engineering, Tirupathur, Vellore District, Tamilnadu
and R/o.Kallepalli Village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. On
25.05.2005 at 01:30 PM, he boarded a jeep bearing No.AP-7-T-3995 at
Jadcherla to go to his village Kallepalli and at about 02:00 PM, when the jeep
was proceeding along National Highway No.7 in the limits of Rajapur at
Kilometer Stone No.2/68, another jeep bearing No.AP-22-U-7569 driven by its
driver with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from Shadnagar
side and hit the jeep in which the petitioner was travelling. Due to which, the
Dr.GRR, J
macma_2282_2008
petitioner and others sustained grievous injuries. The Police, Balanagar
registered a case in Crime No.112 of 2005 under Section 338 of IPC against the
driver of the jeep bearing No.AP-22-U-7569. After the accident, the petitioner
was shifted to Government Hospital, Shadnagar for treatment and subsequently
he had taken treatment at Dhanvantari Hospital, Mahabubnagar. He stated that
he sustained fracture of left humerus and fracture of pelvic bone. An operation
was conducted on him on 27.05.2005. He was admitted as in-patient in
Dhanvantari Hospital from 25.05.2005 to 06.06.2005 and thereafter had taken
treatment as out-patient for three months. He sustained permanent disability.
He was bed ridden for four months. His studies were affected and claimed
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- from respondents 1 and 2, the owner and insurer
of the jeep bearing No.AP-22-U-7569.
3. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.
4. The respondent No.2 filed counter. The respondent No.2 called for strict
proof of the petition averments. He further contended that there was
contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep, in which the
petitioner was traveling as a passenger, as such, the owner and insurer of the
said jeep were also proper and necessary parties to the claim petition. He
further contended that the compensation claimed was excessive, arbitrary and
prayed to dismiss the petition against him.
Dr.GRR, J
macma_2282_2008
5. Basing on the said pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues and
conducted enquiry.
6. The petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and examined the orthopedic
doctor, who treated him as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 in support of his
contention. The respondent No.2 got examined the Branch Manager of its
Company as RW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2. The respondent No.2
contended that the driver of the jeep bearing No.AP-22-U-7569 did not possess
a valid driving licence. He was possessing only driving licence of motor cycle
with gear of non-transport category, whereas the jeep which he insured was a
light motor vehicle of transport category, but admitted in his cross-examination
that the driver of the jeep was holding an LMV non-transport driving licence.
As such, the dispute was confined to a person driving a transport vehicle by
holding a non-transport driving licence.
7. 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-22-U-7569 and held the respondents 1 and 2
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.
8. No appeal was filed by the Insurance Company against the said
observation of the Tribunal. This Appeal is filed by the injured claimant
Dr.GRR, J
macma_2282_2008
seeking enhancement of compensation. As such, this Court does not intend to
go into the said issue.
9. The Tribunal with regard to the quantum of compensation, awarded
Rs.10,000/- towards "pain and suffering" for the grievous injury sustained by
the claimant, Rs.9,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.500/- towards extra
nourishment and Rs.500/- towards transportation and Rs.1,000/- towards loss of
income. In total, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.21,000/- towards
compensation to the injured claimant.
10. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the claimant preferred this
appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable
compensation under all the heads under which he was entitled and prayed to
enhance the compensation in proportionate to the injuries, treatment and
medical expenses incurred by him.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant - claimant and the learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.
12. Perused the record.
13. PW.1 in his evidence stated that due to the accident, he sustained fracture
to his left hand and bleeding injuries all over the body. Immediately after the
accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Shadnagar and from there he
Dr.GRR, J
macma_2282_2008
was referred to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Mahabubnagar, but he
took treatment at Sree Dhanvantari Hospital, Mahabubnagar with
Dr.G.Laxmikanth Reddy, Orthopedic Surgeon, where he was treated as in-
patient from 25.05.2005 to 06.06.2005. During the period of treatment, he
underwent operation, a surgery was performed on him on 25.05.2005.
Subsequently, he took treatment as out-patient for about four months. During
the period of treatment, he was bed ridden, unable to attend to his studies, his
education was affected and he lost one precious academic year. He spent
Rs.50,000/- for medicines and treatment and Rs.10,000/- for transportation,
extra nourishment and attendant charges. Further, he would need to spend
Rs.15,000/- for removal of plate from his hand. Apart from monetory loss, he
was subjected to mental agony and suffered physically.
14. He got examined the Orthopedic Surgeon at Dhanvantari Hospital
Dr.G.Laxmikanth Reddy as PW.2. PW.2 stated that the claimant was admitted
in their hospital on 25.05.2005 and was discharged on 05.06.2005. The
claimant sustained fracture of left humerus and pelvic fracture, he was operated
for left humerus and a plate was fixed through open reduction and internal
fixation (for short "ORIF") and admitted the discharge summary, case sheet and
the bills issued by their hospital. He further stated that the claimant was advised
medication for a period of three months for pelvic fracture.
Dr.GRR, J
macma_2282_2008
15. The discharge summary was marked as Ex.A2, the case sheet was marked
as Ex.A8 and the medical bills were marked as ExA3.
16. As the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 would disclose that the claimant
sustained two fracture injuries (fracture of left humerus and fracture of pelvic
bone) and the fracture of pelvic bone was treated conservatively, for the fracture
of left humerus an operation was conducted and the same was fixed with plates
and screws, the Tribunal ought to have awarded amount for the two fracture
injuries, but only awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards "pain and
suffering". As such, it is considered fit to enhance the compensation on this
count by awarding an amount of Rs.40,000/- under this head @ Rs.20,000/- for
each fracture injury. The petitioner had filed medical bills marked under Ex.A3
for an amount of Rs.9,576.25/- issued by Dhanvantari Hospital, which were
admitted by PW.2. As such, it is considered fit to award an amount of
Rs.10,000/- towards pharmacy bills. The petitioner failed to file medical bill
issued towards his admission in the hospital and for the surgery performed on
him. As he was admitted as in-patient in a private hospital for a period of ten
days, though no bills were filed by the petitioner, as he might have incurred
some amount towards his admission in the hospital, it is considered fit to award
an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head 'medical expenses'.
Dr.GRR, J
macma_2282_2008
17. As a plate was fixed for the fracture of left humerus and it needs to be
removed in future, it is considered fit to award an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards
his future medical expenses. As some of the family members might have
attended him during the period of his admission as in-patient in the hospital and
after his discharge from the hospital also, it is considered fit to award an amount
of Rs.2,500/- towards attendant charges. The petitioner was a student of final
year engineering. No evidence was adduced to show that he was earning while
studying, but however, as his studies were affected due to the two fracture
injuries sustained by him, it is considered fit to award an amount of Rs.10,000/-
under this head, as he might not have attended to the college for a period of two
to three months. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards extra
nourishment and transportation were also meager, as such it is considered fit to
enhance the said amount to Rs.2,500/- each under these heads.
18. Hence, the total compensation entitled by the appellant - claimant under
various heads is as follows:
S. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
2. Loss of income Rs.10,000/-
3. Pharmacy Bills Rs.10,000/-
4. Medical Expenses Rs.10,000/-
5. Future medical expenses Rs.5,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs.2,500/-
7. Extra nourishment Rs.2,500/-
8. Transportation Rs.2,500/-
Total: Rs.82,500/-
Dr.GRR, J
macma_2282_2008
19. As such, the appellant - claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.82,500/-
which is considered as just and reasonable.
20. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation
from Rs.21,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.82,500/- 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.
