Telangana High Court
K Rajeshekar vs P Raj Kumar Goud on 25 January, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.3059 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
directed against award and decree dated 21.08.2018 in
M.V.O.P.No.514 of 2013 on the file of the Chairman, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge,
Warangal (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
25.12.2012 was partly allowed granting compensation of
Rs.3,01,000/-. Dissatisfied by the same, the present appeal is at
the instance of the petitioner before the Tribunal.
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 25.12.2012, he along
with his brother Kalakolla Venkatesh went to Ghanpur in Bajaj
Discover motor cycle bearing No.AP 36 T/R 8709, while they were
returning from Ghanpur, when they reached near Gandhi Center
at about 08:30 PM, a TATA sumo vehicle bearing No.AP 12 F 8863
driven in rash and negligent manner in high speed by its driver 2 MGP,J MACMA_3059_2018
dashed the motor cycle of the petitioner. As a result, the accident
occurred, the petitioner and his brother fell down from their motor
cycle and the petitioner sustained severe injuries on his right side
of the cheek, back side of the head, bottom of left leg knee and left
shoulder. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Jaya
Hospital, Hanamkonda, where he was treated as inpatient from
25.12.2012 to 21.01.2013 and during the course of treatment, he
underwent surgery and spent huge amount towards medicine and
hospital charges. The petitioner was advised complete bed rest for
a period of one year and also medication. With regard to the
accident, a case was registered in Crime No.309 of 2012 under
Section 338 and 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the file of
Ghanpur Police Station, against the driver of crime vehicle bearing
No.AP 12 F 8863.
4. It is further case of the petitioner that he was working in
DST Worldwide Services India Private Limited at Nanakramguda,
Central University Campus, Gachibowli and he was gold medalist
in Kakatiya University during the year 2012. The petitioner was
earning monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-. It is his case that he
incurred an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- towards medical and 3 MGP,J MACMA_3059_2018
treatment charges, Rs.3,50,000/- towards extra nourishment and
Rs.4,50,000/- towards loss of earnings. Hence, the present claim
petition is filed by the petitioner against respondent Nos.1 and 2,
who are owner and insurer of the crime vehicle respectively
claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Subsequently, the
petitioner got amended the claim petition claiming compensation
of Rs.30,00,000/-.
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,
expenditure incurred by him, involvement of the crime vehicle and
income of the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner as
well as the driver of crime vehicle were not having valid driving
license. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. In support of his case, the petitioner got examined P.Ws.1
and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-11. On behalf of respondent
No.2, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
7. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the
Tribunal held that the petitioner has successfully established his 4 MGP,J MACMA_3059_2018
case. Hence, the claim petition was partly allowed holding that
both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation of Rs.3,01,000/-. Dissatisfied with the said
compensation, the present appeal is at the instance of petitioner
for enhancement of compensation.
8. Heard, both sides.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/petitioner is that the Tribunal without considering the
age, qualification and injuries sustained by the petitioner has
granted meager amount towards compensation. It is also
contended that the Tribunal has granted interest, which is on
lower side. Hence, prayed to enhance the compensation granted
by the Tribunal.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 i.e., the
insurance company 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.
5
MGP,J MACMA_3059_2018
11. Now point for determination is as follows:
"Whether the appellant/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 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 and nothing
contrary was elicited in the cross-examination. In order to prove
the injuries sustained by him, he got examined P.W.2, who is
Consultant Neuro Surgeon in Jaya Hospital, Hanumakonda.
P.W.2 based on Ex.A-3 medical certificate deposed that the
petitioner sustained injuries of lacerated wound on frontal,
laceration wound on occipital region, abrasion on right sygomatic,
abrasion on right side of Mandible, abrasion over radial side of
wrist and abrasion over left knee joint. Further, the petitioner
sustained grievous injuries of bilateral accutisdh SDH with ACH,
serie brain erdena, with effacement basial S Cistirns, sagital
sutural diastasis and right frantal bone fracture. Though, he was
cross examined, nothing contrary was elicited. 6
MGP,J MACMA_3059_2018
13. Admittedly, Ex.A-1-copy of FIR in Crime No.309 of 2012
registered under Section 338 and 279 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, on the file of Ghanpur Police Station as well as copy of
charge sheet under Ex.A-2, which is filed by the Police after
thorough investigation against the drive of crime vehicle clearly
discloses the occurrence of the accident and involvement of the
TATA sumo bearing No.AP 12 F 8863 i.e., crime vehicle. The said
documents also clearly disclose that the incident happened due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle.
Furthermore, respondent No.2 has not placed any contrary
evidence on record disputing the occurrence of the accident and
involvement of the crime vehicle in the accident. It is also not
disputed that the crime vehicle was owned by respondent No.1
and insured with respondent No.2. Hence, the Tribunal has
rightly held that the accident occurred as contended by the
petitioner, due to negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle and
that respondent No.1 being owner and respondent No.2 being the
insurer are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
14. The evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A-3 medical
certificate, Ex.A-5 medical prescriptions and Ex.A-6 medical bills 7 MGP,J MACMA_3059_2018
clearly establish the injuries sustained by the petitioner. The
petitioner sustained six simple injuries i.e., frontal, laceration
wound on occipital region, abrasion on right sygomatic, abrasion
on right side of Mandible, abrasion over radial side of wrist and
abrasion over left knee joint and four grievous injuries i.e., of
bilateral accutisdh SDH with ACH, serie brain erdena, with
effacement basial S Cistirns, sagital sutural diastasis and right
frantal bone fracture. Considering the same, the Tribunal has
held that the petitioner is entitled for compensation for the
injuries sustained by him in the accident.
15. It is pertinent to state that the petitioner relied upon Ex.A-6
original medical bills and contended that he has incurred an
amount of Rs.2,02,821/- towards medical expenditure. However,
the Tribunal considering the medical bills attested by the doctor of
Jaya Hospital for a sum of Rs.1,94,350/- and in view of the
evidence of P.W.2 that bills and lab report belongs to Jaya
Hospital, granted a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical
expenses. This Court is of the considered opinion that the said
amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is on meager side. Hence, this Court is
inclined to enhance the same by Rs.50,000/- and grant an 8 MGP,J MACMA_3059_2018
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner on the whole towards
medical expenses incurred by him due to the injuries sustained in
the accident.
16. It is not disputed that the petitioner sustained six simple
injuries and four grievous injuries in the accident that occurred
on 25.12.2012, but the Tribunal has not granted any amounts
towards the said injuries. Furthermore, the petitioner has not
established the disability sustained by him due to the said
injuries. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant an amount of
Rs.25,000/- each to the four grievous injuries sustained by him in
the accident. In total, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted to
the petitioner towards grievous injuries sustained by him in the
accident.
17. It is pertinent to state that as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and
2, the petitioner was admitted in hospital for a period of 27 days
i.e., from 25.12.2012 to 21.01.2013. The petitioner contended
that he was working in DST Worldwide Services India Private
Limited at Nanakramguda, Central University Campus,
Gachibowli, and earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month
towards salary. Further, he was gold medalist in Kakatiya 9 MGP,J MACMA_3059_2018
University, during the academic year 2012. In support of the said
contention, he relied upon Ex.A-7 original appointment order and
salary certificate, Ex.A-8 original Degree certificate and Ex.A-9
original MBA certificate. However, the Tribunal after considering
the educational qualifications and employment of the petitioner
has granted an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income for
the period in which he was under treatment i.e., 27 days. This
Court is of the considered opinion considering the age,
qualification and employment of the petitioner, the said amount is
on meager side. Hence, the same is enhanced by Rs.20,000/- and
the petitioner is granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- in total
towards loss of income during the treatment period.
18. Coming to other heads of compensation, the Tribunal has
granted an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering,
Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.6,000/- towards
transportation charges, Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment
charges and Rs.30,000/- towards future medical treatment of the
petitioner. This Court is of the considered opinion that the said
amounts are rightly granted by the Tribunal based on the evidence
on record and the same is just and reasonable. Hence, 10 MGP,J MACMA_3059_2018
interference of this Court is unwarranted and this Court hereby
confirms the same.
19. The Tribunal granted interest at 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing the petition till the date of realization of the amount
against both the respondents jointly and severally. This Court is
of the considered opinion that the said rate of interest is just and
reasonable and interference of this Court is not necessary.
20. The petitioner was granted an amount of Rs.3,01,000/- by
the Tribunal. After enhancements granted by this Court the total
amount of compensation granted to the petitioner comes to
Rs. 4,71,000/- [medical expenses : Rs.2,00,000/- + injuries :
Rs.1,00,000/- + loss of income during the treatment period :
Rs.50,000/- + pain and suffering : Rs.60,000/- + attendant
charges : Rs.10,000/- + transportation charges : Rs.6,000/- +
extra nourishment charges : Rs.15,000/- + future medical
treatment : Rs.30,000/-]
21. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded
by the Tribunal from Rs.3,01,000/- to Rs.4,71,000/- and rest of 11 MGP,J MACMA_3059_2018
the findings of the Tribunal are hereby confirmed. Respondents
are directed to deposit the enhanced amount to the credit of
M.V.O.P. along with accrued interest within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On
such deposit, the appellant/petitioner is permitted to withdraw
the entire amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 25.01.2024 GVR
