Telangana High Court
B Srihari, Hyd vs B. Vijaysen Reddy, Hyd And Another on 28 June, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.2571 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri T.Vishwarupa Chary, learned counsel for
appellant/petitioner and Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned
counsel for the respondent no.2-insurance company.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant
dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts,
Hyderabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.1244 of 2012,
dated 13.07.2017 and thereby seeking for enhancement of
compensation.
3. Appellant herein is the petitioner, respondent no.1 herein is
respondent no.1-owner of crime vehicle and respondent No.2
herein is the respondent no.2-insurance company before the
Tribunal. For convenience, the parties have been referred to as
arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
LNA,J
4.1. On 13.08.2011, at about 2.00 p.m., while the petitioner
along with his wife and son proceeding from Malakpet to Saidabad
Colony on a motorcycle and when they reached near APAU Colony,
Kalyan Nagar, one TATA ACE trolley bearing registration No.AP-29-
TA-7405 (hereinafter referred to as crime vehicle) came in rash and
negligent manner in high speed and dashed their motor cycle, due
to which, they fell down and sustained serious injuries; that the
petitioner sustained fracture of right knee joint, grievous injury to
left elbow, right ankle and right elbow and other serious injuries all
over the body. Immediately, petitioner was shifted to Sri
Venkateshwara Hospital, Karmanghat, Hyderabad and admitted as
an inpatient.
4.2. The Police, Malakpet Police Station registered a case in
Crime No.306 of 2011 U/s.337 of IPC against the driver of the
crime vehicle.
4.3. The petitioner contended that he is doing business and
earning Rs.2,40,000/- per annum; that he spent more than
Rs.60,000/- towards his treatment; that due to the injuries
sustained by him in the accident, he has suffered permanent
disability and unable to perform his duties.
LNA,J
4.4. The petitioner contended that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.1, who was driver-
cum-owner of the crime vehicle and the crime vehicle was insured
with the respondent No.2-insurance company, he sought
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from them for the injuries
sustained by him.
5. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. The respondent
No.2-insurance company filed counter denying the narration of the
petitioner with respect to the manner of occurrence of accident, the
age, income and avocation of the petitioner. The respondent No.2
further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was not
having valid driving licence and contravened the provisions of
Motor Vehicles Act as well as M.V.Rules and finally, prayed to
dismiss the claim petition.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the
following issues:
1) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred
resulting in injuries to the petitioner, B.Srihari due
to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle
(TATA ACE Trolley bearing registration No.AP-29-TA-
7405) by its driver ?
LNA,J
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any
compensation and if so, at what quantum and what
is the liability of the respondents?
3) To what relief?
7. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the appellant-
injured, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were
marked. On behalf of the respondent no.2, RW.1 was examined
and Ex.B1, Exs.C1 to C5 were marked.
8. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the material and
evidence placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident
took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
crime vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.1,66,064/- towards
compensation to the petitioner payable by the respondent Nos.1 to
and 2 jointly and severally with costs and interest @ 9% p.a. from
the date of the petition till the date of realization.
9. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel
for appellant/petitioner submitted that the Tribunal ought to have
granted the compensation as prayed for in view of grievous injuries
sustained by the petitioner. He further submitted that on account
of 25% of permanent disability sustained by the petitioner,
petitioner became unfit for his work and thereby he is put to 100%
LNA,J
loss of earning capacity, however, the Tribunal has not properly
considered the disability sustained by the petitioner and
erroneously assessed the disability at 25% only. He submitted
that Tribunal erred in not accepting functional disability @ 100%
as per the evidence and also not awarding any amount towards
fracture injures, future medical expenses, loss of amenities, future
prospects, extra nourishment and transportation. He further
submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding meager amounts
towards pain and suffering and finally, prayed for enhancement of
compensation.
10. Learned counsel for appellant/petitioner placed reliance on
the following decisions in support of his contention.
i) Rajesh & others vs. Ragbirsingh and others 1;
ii) Sanjay Batham vs. Munnalal Parhar and others 2;
iii)Subbulaxmi vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation 3;
iv) Govind Yadav vs New India Insurance Co.Ltd., 4;
v) Rekhajain vs. Naional Insurance Co. Ltd., 5
2013 ACJ 1403
2012 (2) ALD 153 (SC)
Civil Appeal No.7750 of 2012 of Apex Court
(2011) 10 SCC 683
(2013) 8 SCC 389
LNA,J
11. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2-insurance
company submitted that the Tribunal had rightly awarded the
compensation towards injuries sustained by the petitioner and the
grounds raised by the petitioner are untenable and no case is
made out warranting interference by this Court with the impugned
award passed by the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the
appeal.
Consideration:
12. With regard to the main contention raised by learned
counsel for petitioner that Tribunal failed to award compensation
amount on account of 25% permanent disability suffered by the
petitioner and thereby petitioner put to 100% loss of earning
capacity; the Tribunal had considered the evidence of P.W.2-
Dr.Narsing Rao and the material placed on record. According to
him, as per the previous medical record, the petitioner suffered
25% disability and to that effect, he issued Ex.A8-Disability
Certificate; that petitioner is suffering from stiffness of the right
knee joint, difficulty in climbing the staircase. However, in the
cross-examination, P.W.2 admitted that he has not treated the
petitioner and he is not a member of Medical Board.
LNA,J
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent no.2, before
the Tribunal, has relied upon the decisions in Rajesh Kumar v.
Yudhvir Singh and another 6 and Sannal Bhaskar Reddy vs.
M.Sreenivasulu and another 7, wherein it was held that medical
certificate is not admissible in evidence if the Doctor has not been
examined and that the disability certificate issued by a doctor, who
did not treat the injured, has no evidential value.
14. Perusal of the impugned award would show that the
Tribunal on considering the oral evidence, material on record and
the legal position, has rightly rejected the disability assessed by
P.W.2. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
petitioner failed to make out any case that petitioner sustained
25% of permanent disability and needs no interference by this
Court on this aspect.
15. Insofar as the other contention of the petitioner that
Tribunal has not awarded the amount towards grievous injuries is
concerned, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/-
towards injuries. On perusal of record, petitioner sustained
2008 ACJ 2131
2010 ACJ 1122
LNA,J
fracture of tibia spine right knee joint, which is grievous in nature,
one grievous injury to left elbow and two simple abrasions on the
back of the chest as per Ex.A3-MLC record. Considering the
injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered
view that an amount of Rs.25,000/- each towards fracture and
grievous injuries and Rs.15,000/- each to simple injuries, totaling
to Rs.80,000/-, which is just and proper and the same needs to be
modified to the above extent.
16. The other contentions raised by the learned counsel for
petitioner with regard to awarding of compensation on other
counts, needs no interference by this Court since the Tribunal had
rightly assessed and awarded the amount on each count.
17. The facts in the citations relied upon by the learned counsel
for appellant/petitioner are not relevant to the facts of the present
appeal since the petitioner failed to establish and prove that he
suffered 25% permanent disability on account of injuries received
by him in the accident with cogent and reliable evidence and
therefore, same do not come to the aid of the appellant/petitioner.
LNA,J
Conclusion:
18. In view of the above discussion, the compensation amount is
recalculated as under:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Injuries Rs.80,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs.16,064/-
3 Loss of earnings Rs.60,000/-
4 Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-
5 Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/-
6 Transportation Rs.10,000/-
Total compensation to be Rs.2,16,064/-
paid:
19. In the result, Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned
award passed by the Tribunal insofar as compensation amount is
concerned, is modified enhancing the compensation amount from
Rs.1,66,064/- to Rs.2,16,064/-, which shall carry interest at the
rate awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of the claim petition
till the date of realization. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are
directed to deposit the above compensation amount within a period
of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such
LNA,J
deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire
compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date: 28.06.2024
kkm
