Telangana High Court
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. ... vs M.Abhishikth And Another on 22 January, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1927 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
directed against judgment and decree dated 06.02.2017 in
M.V.O.P.No.1103 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy
District at L.B.Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').
The said M.V.O.P. filed by the petitioner therein seeking
compensation for injuries sustained by him in an accident that
occurred on 26.11.2011 was partly allowed. Aggrieved by the
same, the present appeal is filed at the instance of respondent
No.2 before the Tribunal i.e., the insurance company.
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 he was travelling in Volvo
bus bearing No.KA 01 AD 7150 from Bangalore to Hyderabad on
25.11.2011, when the bus reached near Kambalapally X road at
about 01:30 AM on 26.11.2011, the driver of the said bus drove in
MGP,J
MACMA_1927_2017
rash and negligent manner in high speed without following traffic
rules and caused accident. The accident occurred, when the
driver of the said bus dashed a stationed Eicher van bearing
No.HR 69 A 4817 from back side, due to which the inmates of the
bus received grievous injuries. The petitioner also sustained
multiple fracture injuries and immediately, he was shifted to
Government Hospital, Penukonda, Anantapur District and after
first aid, he was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad, for
better treatment. In the said hospital, the petitioner was admitted
as inpatient and underwent several surgeries. In this regard, on a
complaint a case was registered in Crime No.79 of 2011 against
the driver of Volvo bus bearing No.KA 01 AD 7150, on the file of
Police Station Chilamathur.
4. It is further the case of the petitioner that he was hale and
healthy before the accident. He was working as software engineer
[Solutions Rep.III (TS-III)] in Hewlett Packard Global Soft Private
Limited, Bangalore, and earning an amount of Rs.32,227/- per
month. Due to the accident, he did not attend his office for a
period of 18 months and he lost one promotion chance. The
petitioner incurred medical expenses of more than Rs.15,00,000/-
MGP,J
MACMA_1927_2017
and he requires more surgeries in future also to remove the stent
which is placed in his head. He is the only earning member of his
family. The accident took place solely due to the negligence on the
part of the driver of Volvo bus bearing No.KA 01 AD 7150. Hence,
respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the
insured are liable to pay compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- together
with interest to the petitioner.
5. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed
its counter denying the averments of the claim petition such as
manner of the accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner,
ownership of the vehicle involved in the accident, driving license of
the driver of the vehicle and also negligence of the driver. It is also
contended that respondent No.1 did not comply the statutory
mandate of intimating the details of the accident to respondent
No.2. Respondent No.2 also denied the employment and salary of
the petitioner. It is lastly contended that the claim petition is
liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the owner of the Eicher
van bearing No.HR 69 A 4817, as the accident occurred due to
collusion of both the vehicles. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim
petition as the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant.
MGP,J
MACMA_1927_2017
6. In support of his case, the petitioner got examined P.Ws.1
and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-13. On behalf of respondent
No.2, no witnesses were examined, but Ex.B-1 was got marked.
7. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the
Tribunal held that the petitioner has successfully established his
case. Hence, the claim petition was allowed holding that both the
respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed
at the instance of respondent No.2 i.e., insurance company.
8. Heard, both sides.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/respondent No.2 is that the Tribunal without deducting
the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, which was claimed by the petitioner
under Medi-claim has granted excess amount towards
compensation. It is also contended that the claim petition is liable
to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties as the petitioner has not
made the owner of Eicher van bearing No. HR 69 A 4817, which
was also involved in the accident along with the Volvo bus owned
by respondent No.1, as party to the claim petition. It is also
MGP,J
MACMA_1927_2017
contended that the compensation granted is on higher side.
Hence, prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment passed by the Tribunal.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent
No.1/petitioner contended that the Tribunal after considering all
the aspects has granted just and reasonable compensation and
interference of this Court is unwarranted. Hence, prayed to
dismiss the appeal.
11. Now point for determination is as follows:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as granted
by the Tribunal?"
Point:-
12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
placed on record by both the parties. The petitioner got examined
himself as P.W.1, reiterated the contents of the claim petition got
marked Exs.A-1 to A-11. In the cross-examination, P.W.1
categorically denied the suggestions put to him. In order to prove
the injuries sustained by him, he got examined P.W.2, who is
Senior Consultant Surgeon in KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad.
P.W.2 deposed that the petitioner was diagnosed with head injury
MGP,J
MACMA_1927_2017
and he was evaluated by C.T.Scan suggestive of acute subdural
Hematoma with mass effect with medicine sift, chest (L) X ray and
ultra sound abdomen shown normal. P.W.1 was found to have
abrasions right hand for which plastic surgery consultation was
taken. P.W.1 also underwent decompresive craniectomy surgery
for head injury on 27.11.2011 and was maintained in Intensive
Care Unit (ICU) and needed long fever ventilator support post
operation. Hence, tracheotomy on 29.11.2011 and gradually
weaned off.
13. P.W.2 further deposed that the petitioner developed
meningitis infection and the same was managed symptomatically.
They repeated C.T.Scan Neuro Hydrocephalus for which
ventriculo-peritoneal shunt dove on 22.12.2011 with left frontal
hematoma evacuation. Still bvlg (brain bulg) noted and he
underwent bone flap on 27.12.2012. Gradually, the health of the
petitioner was improved and he was discharged on 08.01.2012 in
stable condition. P.W.2 further deposed that the petitioner was
re-admitted on 07.02.2012 with history of Sunkan bone flap,
which was evaluated and correction of bone flap was done on
08.02.2012. He also underwent plastic surgery for his left middle
MGP,J
MACMA_1927_2017
finger i.e., left middle finger bountonious defornatory and he was
discharged on 09.02.2012. In the cross-examination of P.W.2,
nothing contrary was elicited and he denied the suggestions made
by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 before the Tribunal.
14. Admittedly, Ex.A-1-copy of FIR in Crime No.79 of 2011 and
Ex.A-2 copy of charge sheet dated 28.11.2011 clearly establish the
occurrence of the accident and involvement of the Volvo bus
owned by respondent No.1 in the accident. The evidence of
P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A-3 injury certificate, Ex.A-4
estimation of future surgeries issued by KIMS, Ex.A-7 bunch of
medical bills, Ex.A-8 Discharge summary dated 08.01.2012,
Ex.A-9- X-rays and Ex.A-10 discharge summary dated 09.02.2012
clearly establish the injuries sustained by the petitioner,
treatment underwent by him and also the expenditure incurred by
him for the said treatment. Further, Ex.A-5 pay slip of the
petitioner for the month of October, 2011, Ex.A-6 Form No.16 for
the year 2011-12 and Ex.A-11 copy of pan card prove the
employment and income of the petitioner. Ex.B-1 copy of
insurance policy clearly discloses that the Volvo bus bearing
MGP,J
MACMA_1927_2017
No.KA 01 AD 7150 involved in the accident was having valid and
effective insurance policy as on the date of the accident.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2
contended that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed for non-
joinder of parties as the petitioner did not made the owner of
Eicher van bearing No. HR 69 A 4817, which was also involved in
the accident along with the Volvo bus owned by respondent No.1,
as party to the claim petition. A perusal of Ex.A-1-copy of FIR and
Ex.A-2 copy of charge sheet discloses that the driver of the Volvo
bus bearing No.KA 01 AD 7150 drove the bus in high speed in
rash and negligent manner and dashed a wrongly stationed Eicher
van bearing No.HR 69 A 4817. In this regard, FIR was registered
under Ex.A-1 and after investigation, police laid charge sheet
under Ex.A-2 against drivers of both the Volvo bus and Eicher
van.
16. It is pertinent to state that, in the present case, the
petitioner was travelling in the Volvo bus bearing No.KA 01 AD
7150, which is owned by respondent No.1, as a passenger.
Admittedly, there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner for
the occurrence of the accident. The negligence is restricted only to
MGP,J
MACMA_1927_2017
drivers of the Volvo bus as well as Eicher van and the negligence
is composite and not contributory. In composite negligence, the
petitioner is having right to proceed against the wrongdoers
individually or jointly. In the present case, the petitioner chose to
proceed against one wrongdoer i.e., the owner of the Volvo bus, as
he was bona fide passenger of the said bus. In the said
circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/respondent No.2 that the claim petition is liable to be
dismissed for non-joinder of parties is unsustainable.
17. Though, other grounds were raised, the main ground raised
in the present appeal by the learned counsel for the
appellant/respondent No.2 is that the Tribunal without deducting
the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, which was claimed by the petitioner
under Medi-claim has granted excess amount towards
compensation. It is pertinent to state that admittedly, the
petitioner has claimed Rs.4,00,000/- from medi-claim and the
same has been deducted from the hospital bills. It is pertinent to
state that the petitioner has taken medi-claim policy from his
personal funds for his personal health benefits. In the present
case, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of
MGP,J
MACMA_1927_2017
Volvo bus, in which the petitioner was travelling as bona fide
passenger. Hence, the petitioner cannot be deprived of
compensation by deducting Rs.4,00,000/- which was claimed by
him from medi-claim, which was obtained by him paying separate
premium for his personal health issues. Therefore, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly considered
all the aspects and has not deducted Rs.4,00,000/- claimed by
the petitioner from medi-claim, while granting compensation and
interference of this Court is unwarranted.
18. Coming to other aspects, this Court is of the considered
opinion that Tribunal after considering the age, salary,
occupation, injuries sustained and other aspects has granted just
and reasonable compensation to the petitioner for the injuries
sustained by him in the accident. Hence, interference of this
Court into the said aspects is unwarranted. The appeal is devoid
of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
19. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated
06.02.2017 in M.V.O.P.No.1103 of 2013 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of
MGP,J
MACMA_1927_2017
cases under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. There shall be no order as to
costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 22.01.2024
GVR
