Telangana High Court
Dugyala Ashok vs R Gopal on 11 January, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1981 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
directed against order and decree dated 18.12.2017 in
M.V.O.P.No.789 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-Judge Family Court-cum-VI Additional District
Judge at Khammam (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The
said O.P. filed by the petitioner therein seeking compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- for injuries sustained by him in an accident that
occurred on 18.02.2014 was partly allowed granting compensation
of Rs.1,85,294/-. Dissatisfied by the same, the present appeal is
at the instance of the petitioner before the Tribunal seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter
referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 17.02.2014, he had
been to his native village Palakurthi of Warangal District on his
motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 AF 8840 and on the next date i.e., on
18.02.2014 in early hours, he started from the said village on his
motorcycle to go to Kodad. At about 08:00 hours, when he
MGP,J
MACMA_1981_2018
reached near Mandadi Narsaiahgudem village on R&B road
leading from Nayakangudem to Kodad, a tractor and trailer
bearing No.AP 24 Y 6553 and 6554 came in high speed in opposite
direction driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and
dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner. Due to the said accident
the petitioner sustained grievous and multiple injuries.
Immediately, he was shifted to Dr.P.N.V.S.V.Prasad's Hospital,
Khammam, for treatment and later, he was shifted to Ozone
Hospital, Hyderabad, wherein X-rays were taken. During the
course of treatment as inpatient, he underwent surgery to his
right leg, insertion of steel plates and K-wiring was applied and he
was discharged on 08.03.2014 with an advice to attend follow up
treatment. He also underwent physiotherapy treatment.
4. It is further case of the petitioner that on 26.05.2014, he
was again admitted in the hospital as inpatient for OP-MIPO right
tibia with infected implant and delayed union and another surgery
was conducted for removal of infected implants. He was
discharged on 28.05.2014 with an advice for follow up
treatment.As the fracture did not unite, he was again admitted in
the hospital on 12.03.2015 and again underwent surgery for right
MGP,J
MACMA_1981_2018
leg and he was finally discharged on 15.03.2015 with advice to
attend follow up treatment for six months. Even, as on the date of
claim petition, the petitioner was continuing medicines. It is his
case that he spent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical
expenses, attendant, transportation and extra nourishment
charges. Based on the report, a case was registered in Crime
No.47 of 2014 under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, on
the file of Kusumanchi Police Station and after completion of
investigation charge sheet was filed under Section 338 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the driver of the said tractor and
trailer bearing No.AP 24 Y 6553 and 6554.
5. According to the petitioner, he was hale and healthy prior to
the accident and he was aged about 30 years as on the date of the
accident. He used to work as cashier in Venkateshwara Wine
Shop at Kodad and was being paid an amount of Rs.8,000/- per
month towards salary. Hence, the petitioner filed the present
claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the
respondents, who are owner and insurer of the tractor and trailer
involved in the accident.
MGP,J
MACMA_1981_2018
6. Respondent No.1 was set ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed its
counter denying the averments of the claim petition such as age,
wages and manner of the accident. It is contended that the driver
of tractor and trailer involved in the accident was not having valid
license at the time of the accident and that the accident occurred
due to sole negligence of the claim petitioner, but not the driver of
the tractor and trailer. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim
petition.
7. In support of the case of the petitioner, he got examined
himself as P.W.1 and also got examined P.Ws.2 to 4 and got
marked Exs.A-1 to A-16. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W.1
was got examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were got marked.
Respondent No.2 summoned RTA authority and got examined as
R.W.2 and Exs.X-1 and X-2 were got marked.
8. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the
Tribunal held that the petitioner has successfully established his
case. Hence, the claim petition was partly allowed holding that
respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,85,294/-
and case against respondent No.1 was dismissed. Dissatisfied
MGP,J
MACMA_1981_2018
with the said compensation, the present appeal has been preferred
by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner.
Despite service of notice, none appeared and there is no
representation for respondents/respondents.
10. The main contention of the learned counsel for
appellant/petitioner is that the petitioner sustained severe and
grievous injuries and he has been undergoing treatment
continuously in one hospital or other. Even, as on the date of
claim petition, he was undergoing treatment, but the Tribunal
without considering the same has awarded meager amount
towards compensation. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal and
enhance the compensation.
11. Now point for determination is as follows:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of
compensation granted by the Tribunal as prayed for?"
Point:-
12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
placed on record by both the parties. The petitioner, himself got
MGP,J
MACMA_1981_2018
examined as P.W.1 and reiterated the contents of the claim
petition. In order to prove injuries sustained by him, the
petitioner got examined P.W.2, who is consultant orthopedic
surgeon. He deposed that on 18.02.2014, the petitioner went to
his hospital with injuries sustained in road traffic accident i.e.,
closed fracture of tibia and fibula right, fracture to patella right
and fibula head fracture. All the three injuries were grievous in
nature and X-rays were taken. After which, he was admitted as
inpatient in hospital on the same day. During the course of
treatment, the petitioner was diagnosed with fat-embolism
syndrome which was treated conservatively in Intensive Care Unit
(ICU). He was then operated with MIPO-Plate and cylindrical slab
applied for patella fracture on 25.02.2014 and on 06.03.2014, he
was discharged.
13. P.W.2 also deposed that on 26.05.2014, the petitioner again
got admitted with complaint of pain and puss discharge from
operated side on right leg with delayed union. During the
treatment, implants were removed on the same day and antibiotic
bead chain was inserted under spiral anesthesia and appropriate
MGP,J
MACMA_1981_2018
medication was advised. He was discharged on 28.05.2014 with
advice for review definitive surgery.
14. The petitioner also got examined P.W.3, who is another
orthopedic surgeon. He deposed that he is running hospital in the
name and style Srujan Orthopedic Hospital, Khammam and the
claim petitioner came to his hospital, on 22.08.2014, for follow up
treatment for the surgery done to him in Hyderabad about six
months ago. He further deposed that the petitioner was under his
treatment for non-union of the right leg, so options were given to
him to weight watch for illizrove fictation and advised to continue
walking with PTB case which was applied to the petitioner on
01.09.2014. He also stated that further surgery was performed to
the petitioner and he was under follow up treatment till
24.04.2015.
15. In view of the above, it is clear that there is no dispute with
regard to accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner and
also treatment underwent by him in various hospitals, as the
same is proved through the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. The
Tribunal has considered the evidence as well as documents filed
by the petitioner, which were supported by P.Ws.2 and 3, and
MGP,J
MACMA_1981_2018
awarded compensation to the petitioner. The Tribunal has
awarded an amount of Rs.1,22,294/- towards medical expenses
and transportation charges and Rs.15,000/- toward extra
nourishment and attendant charges.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant contended that
the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards pain and
suffering. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that
an amount of Rs.25,000/- can be granted towards pain and
suffering to the petitioner.
17. Now, coming to the aspect of loss of income, the petitioner
underwent treatment and surgeries and he was advised for bed
rest for a period of six months. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken
the income of the petitioner as Rs.8,000/- per month and awarded
loss of income for period of six months, which comes to
Rs.48,000/-. However, the learned counsel for the
appellant/petitioner contended that the petitioner was advised bed
rest for a period of one year, but the Tribunal has awarded loss of
income for only six months period. As per record, the date of the
accident is 18.02.2014 and after undergoing several surgeries, the
petitioner was ultimately discharged on 28.05.2014 and doctors
MGP,J
MACMA_1981_2018
advised the petitioner to take bed rest for period of six months.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
petitioner can be granted further loss of income for four months,
which comes to Rs.32,000/- (Rs.8,000/- X 4 months), which is in
addition to loss of income of Rs.48,000/-, which is already granted
by the Tribunal. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for an amount of
Rs.80,000/- in total towards loss of income.
18. The total quantum of compensation after adding the
enhancements granted by this Court comes to Rs.2,42,294/-
[already granted by the Tribunal : Rs.1,85,294/- + pain and
suffering : Rs.25,000/- + additional loss of income : Rs.32,000/-].
The same is rounded off to Rs.2,42,000/-.
19. Coming to the aspect of interest, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly awarded interest
on the compensation amount and interference of this Court is
unwarranted.
20. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from
Rs.1,85,294/- to Rs.2,42,000/- and the rest of the findings in
MGP,J
MACMA_1981_2018
order and decree dated 18.12.2017 in M.V.O.P.No.789 of 2015 on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge Family
Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge at Khammam, are hereby
confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous
applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 11.01.2024
GVR
