Telangana High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs B Ravinder Reddy on 2 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
M.A.C.M.A.No.255 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been
filed by the appellant-respondent No.2 under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the order of the learned
Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional
Chief Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court at Hyderabad in
M.V.O.P.No.1734 of 2011. The appellant herein is respondent
No.2 in the said petition and is, being aggrieved by the order,
dated 10.04.2018 by which learned Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.7,15,418/- as compensation in favour of the
respondent/claimant for the injuries caused to him in road
traffic accident, filed this appeal under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicles
Rules on the following grounds:-.
2. The Tribunal committed an error in awarding a sum of
Rs.7,15,418/- without looking into the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court reported in Sardari and Others Vs. Sushil Kumar
and Others 1 which was cited before the Tribunal. The Tribunal
1 2008 ACJ 1307
ought to have dismissed the claim against the present appellant
as they have already sent a notice to the owner and driver of the
vehicle to produce the driving license, but there was no
response and no license was filed before the appellant herein.
Therefore, it seems that the driver, who involved in the accident,
did not possess a valid driving license to drive the auto.
Therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the liability
against the appellant herein. The Tribunal committed an error
by considering the income of the respondent/claimant as
Rs.5,000/- per month, since there was no sufficient proof
produced before the Court below. The Tribunal ought to have
dismissed the claim petition as the driver of the crime vehicle
was not made as a party. The Tribunal ought not to have
granted exorbitant amount of Rs.75,000/- towards pain and
suffering for three fracture injuries, and Rs.1,00,000/- towards
loss of earnings. The appellant has questioned the rate of
interest awarded by the Tribunal and sought for setting aside
the impugned order.
3. As could be seen from the impugned order in the present
appeal, the brief case of the respondent, while seeking a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation, is that on 15.08.2008 at
about 10:30 a.m while he was proceeding from Renikunta
Village to Rajapet on foot and when he reached near Rice Mill
situated near to Rajapet Village, the driver of auto bearing No.
AP 24 W 9878 drove the auto at high speed in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed him, thereby he received fractures
and other injuries all over the body. He was immediately shifted
to KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad and was treated as in-patient
from 15.08.2008 to 22.08.2008. Even after discharge, he visited
the hospital on several occasions. The respondent has claimed
that he spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- for treatment and
sought for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on various heads as
compensation.
4. The respondent No.1 in the original petition i.e., owner of
the vehicle disputed the claim and sought for dismissal of the
petition.
5. The present appellant also filed a separate counter
denying the liability and sought for dismissal of the petition.
The Tribunal has framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 15.08.2008
has occurred owing to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of Auto Trolley bearing No.
AP 24 W 9878 and whether the petitioner has
sustained injuries in the said accident ?
2. Whether the crime vehicle No. AP 24 W 9878 was
owned by the first respondent and insured with
second respondent as on the date of the accident
and whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation, if so to what quantum and what is
the liability of the respondents ?
3. To what relief ?
6. During enquiry, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to
A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents the appellant
herein had examined RW1 and marked Exs.B1 to B3.
7. The Tribunal having appreciated the pleadings, evidence
both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that 1st
respondent/claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.7,15,418/-
as compensation and allowed the petition in part directing the
appellant as well as the other respondent to pay the amount.
8. Heard both parties.
9. Now the following points arose for consideration in this
appeal are:
1. Whether the Tribunal committed any error in
awarding compensation of Rs.7,15,418/-. If so,
whether it is liable to be set aside?
2. To what relief?
POINT NOS.1 &2 :
10. Even as per the grounds raised in the present appeal,
there is no dispute about the accident in which the 1st
respondent-claimant suffered multiple injuries including the
fractures. Similarly, there is no dispute by the appellant herein
about the policy that was issued against the vehicle i.e.,
respondent No.2 bearing No. AP 24 W 9878 and which was
involved in the above referred case. The appeal is filed mainly on
the ground of quantum of compensation. The learned counsel
for the appellant has submitted that though the Tribunal found
that there is no evidence to believe that respondent-claimant
had to undergo further surgeries, awarded an amount of
Rs.50,000/-. There is no basis for the Tribunal to assess the
income of respondent as Rs.5,000/- per month, thereby the
Tribunal ought not to have awarded such huge amount as
compensation which includes loss of earnings as per the
admission of 1st respondent.
11. The 1st respondent-claimant while going on road met with
an accident since the auto as stated above dashed him causing
grievous injuries. The 1st respondent, who was examined as
PW1, apart from his own oral evidence, got examined Medical
Officer as PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A10. As per these
documents, the 1st respondent was treated as in-patient for a
considerable period. Injury Certificate/Ex.A.6, Original
Discharge Summary/Ex.A.7 for Rs.2,16,566/-, dated
22.08.2008 towards hospitalization, bunch of outpatient
bills/Ex.A.8 for Rs.3,852/- prove the accident. The Tribunal not
only considered the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 but also
documentary evidence including Disability Certificate/Ex.A9.
12. It is true that the 1st respondent did not produce any
authenticated proof about his income. However, as could be
seen from the prescription, the respondent was aged about 43
years and he was an agriculturist. Therefore, the Tribunal
rightly considered the monthly income of respondent as
Rs.5,000/- as now a days, a coolie could earn Rs.200/- per day
by attending agricultural work or other daily wages work.
Therefore, such an income cannot be considered as exorbitant
amount. The other amounts awarded by the Tribunal are on the
basis of other oral evidence of the Medical Officer and the
Medical Bills. However, as rightly argued by the counsel, though
the Tribunal opined that there is no proof about the Future
Surgery or Future Medication has awarded exorbitant amount
to Rs.50,000/- under the head of Future Medical Expenditure.
13. The award clearly shows that the Tribunal considered the
age and functional disability by assessing it as 25% and
awarded appropriate compensation of Rs.2,10,000/-. Apart
from it, some more amounts were granted under the other
heads. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded
Rs.50,000/- towards Future Medication. Even though, so many
grounds were raised in the appeal, the impugned award clearly
shows that the Tribunal considered the oral and documentary
evidence in arriving the above referred compensation. Therefore
except the grant of Rs.50,000/- towards Future Medical
Expenditure, the other amounts can be awarded thereby to that
extent, the appeal can be allowed. Accordingly Point Nos. 1 and
2 are answered.
14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the
compensation amount is reduced from Rs.7,15,418/- to
Rs.6,65,418/- and accordingly modified. There is no order as to
costs.
As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
Date: 02.01.2024
ds
