Telangana High Court
Sivini Amani, Adilabad Dist vs Murukuri Chandraiah, Adilabad Dist And ... on 14 June, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.No.975 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-
petitioner assailing the Judgment, dated 06.12.2016 in O.P.No.239
of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III
Additional District Judge, Asifabad (for short, 'Tribunal') seeking
enhancement of the compensation by setting aside the Judgment.
2. The appellant herein is the petitioner, respondent no.1
herein is the respondent no.1-driver of the offending vehicle and
respondent no.2 herein is the respondent no.2-insurance
company before the Tribunal. For convenience, the parties
hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief factual matrix of the case is as under:-
Petitioner was working as Sweeper at Bellampally
Municipality on contract basis and earning Rs.7,000/- per month.
On 31.03.2013, when she was cleaning roads in front of Chunnu
Bai Hotel, near Rama talkies, Bellampally, a tractor bearing
No.AP-01-Y-5259 came in reverse direction in rash and negligent
LNA,J
manner with high speed and dashed to her, as a result, she fell
down on the road and sustained injuries to his right ankle and
foot besides some other injuries all over the body and
immediately, she was shifted to Government Hospital at
Bellampally and after first aid, she was admitted in Spring
Hospital, Karimnagar, where she was treated as inpatient from
31.03.2013 to 09.04.2013 and an operation was conducted on her.
Later, she was again admitted in Bhadrakali Hospital at
Karimnagar and from there, she was referred to Gandhi Hospital,
Secunderabad, where she was treated as inpatient from
02.05.2013 to 14.05.2013 and her right foot was amputated and
Rs.2,00,000/- was spent towards hospital and medical expenses
and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation and that due to injuries
she suffered pain and agony and still feeling acute pain and she
could not attend the work and claimed compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/-.
4. Respondent No.1 filed a counter stating that there was no
fault on the part of driver of tractor and denied the age and
income of the petitioner. It was further contended the said tractor
LNA,J
was insured with respondent no.2 and therefore, the respondent
no.1 is not liable to pay any compensation.
5. Respondent No.2-insurance company filed counter stating
that the petitioner has to prove the manner of accident, age,
occupation and loss of income and further contended that
respondent no.1 has no valid driving license and thereby,
violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy, as such,
insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.
6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the
following issues:
"1. Whether the accident took place as alleged by the
petitioner on 31.03.2013 at about 5.30 am near Rama
talkies area, Bellampally, as alleged by the petitioner due
to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tractor
bearing No.AP-01-Y-5259 respondent or whether there
was any contributory negligence on the part of the
petitioner ?
2. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries and disability
as alleged?
3. Whether there was any insurance coverage for the
driver of Tractor bearing No.AP-01-Y-5259 and if so, does
LNA,J
the policy cover the risk of petitioner and if so, was there
any breach of policy condition alleged by the respondent?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation,
if so what extent and against whom?
5. To what relief?"
7. To substantiate the claim, on behalf of the petitioner,
P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A18 were marked. On
behalf of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence is
adduced.
8. The Tribunal, on due consideration of oral and
documentary evidence placed on record, has come to a
conclusion that the accident occurred only due to rash and
negligent driving of the tractor by its driver in reverse direction
and awarded total compensation of Rs.3,28,200/-.
9. Heard Sri K.Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant/petitioner and Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel
for respondent No.2-insurance company.
10. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner
submitted that the Tribunal erred in not granting total
LNA,J
compensation as claimed by the petitioner and the Tribunal failed
to award compensation towards injuries sustained by petitioner.
He submitted that Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the
petitioner at Rs.6,700/-, though the petitioner used to earn
Rs.7,000/- per month by working as sweeper. He further
submitted that Tribunal erred in granting meager amount of
compensation under conventional heads and also erred in not
granting any amount under the heads like injury, loss of earnings,
pain and suffering and extra nourishment etc.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for insurance
company submitted that the Tribunal, on considering the oral
and documentary evidence, had rightly awarded the
compensation of Rs.3,28,000/-, which is just and reasonable and
needs no interference by this Court and prayed to dismiss the
appeal.
Consideration:
12. Though the learned counsel for petitioner raised number of
grounds in the present appeal, he mainly contended with regard
to non-awarding of compensation towards injuries sustained by
LNA,J
the petitioner. He contended that the right foot of the petitioner
was amputated and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have
awarded proper compensation in view of serious injuries.
However, perusal of the record and impugned award disclose
that as per Ex.A3-discharge summary, petitioner sustained crush
injury to his right foot and as per the evidence of P.W.3-
Dr.Subodh Kumar, right great toe of the petitioner was removed
and the Tribunal on considering the nature of the injuries
sustained by the petitioner had rightly awarded a sum of
Rs.75,000/- towards pain and agony besides a sum of
Rs.1,86,300/- towards treatment and medical expenses, which in
considered opinion of this Court is just and proper.
13. In considered opinion of this Court, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable
and in accordance with evidence placed on record.
14. This Court, having considered the rival submissions on
both sides, is of the considered opinion that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and further, the
learned counsel for petitioner failed to make out any case or point
LNA,J
out any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the
Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is
liable to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date:14.06.2024
BV/kkm
