Telangana High Court
Arakala Raghu vs Erabati Surender on 18 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.
78 & 3165 of 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT:
The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.78
of 2019 is filed aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated
31.07.2018 (impugned Order) passed in Motor Vehicle
Original Petition No.58 of 2014 by the learned Chairman,
Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI
Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani (for short "the
Tribunal"), appellants-Insurance company preferred the
present Appeal praying this Court to set aside the
impugned Order.
02. The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
No.3165 of 2019 is filed dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded vide impugned Order by the
learned the Tribunal, appellant-petitioner preferred the
present Appeal praying this Court seeking enhancement of
the compensation amount.
03. As the both these Appeals arising out of same
impugned Order, the parties are one and the same and
they are interlinked with each other, these Appeals are
being disposed of by way of this Common Judgment.
04. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the
parties will be referred to as per their array before the
learned Tribunal.
05. Brief facts of the case are that:
Petitioner filed a petition under Section 166(1)(a) of
the Motor Vehicle Act before the learned Tribunal, claiming
compensation of Rs.23,00,000/- for the injuries sustained
by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on
25.03.2010.
06. According to petitioner, on 25.03.2010
petitioner (rider) along with one Gajula Raghu (pillion rider)
went to N.T.P.C., Ramagundam on their personal work on
a Bajaj Motorcycle bearing No. AP 36 Q 6020 and while
returning to Godavarikhani at about 09:30 PM., when they
reached Armed Reserve Headquarters, Godavarikhani on
Rajeev Rahadari, a Lorry bearing No. AP 15 Y 2888 being
driven by respondent No.1 had overtaken the bike of
petitioner and applied sudden brakes without giving any
signals and precautions. Due to which, the motorcycle of
petitioner hit lorry and both rider and pillion rider fell down
and sustained severe injuries. The accident was caused
due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1.
Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Sai Ram
Multi-Speciality Hospital, Karimnagar and was treated as
in-patient and thereafter shifted to Yashoda Hospital,
Hyderabad. Petitioner sustained polytrauma with head
injury and cervical neck injury, another head injury
involving left fronto parietal depressed fracture, another
fracture of left humerus and left femur and cervical spine
injury i.e., fracture of C5 and C6. Based on a complaint, a
case in Crime No.49 of 2010 by the Police, Ramagundam
(Traffic) was registered for the offences under Sections 337
and 338 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No.1.
07. As per petitioner, he was aged about 23 years at
the time of accident and he was working as driver in Sri
Raja Rajeshwara Travels and Transports and earning
Rs.8,000/- per month and contributing the same for
maintenance of her family. He spent huge amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, he
sought for compensation of Rs.23,00,000/- from
respondents.
08. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte
before the learned Tribunal. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed
common counter denying averments of the claim petition,
rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry and the
manner of occurrence of the accident. Further, the age,
avocation, injuries sustained by petitioner were also
denied. It is contended that there was contributory
negligence on the part of petitioner and that respondent
No.1 has no valid driving license and that the
compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and
prayed to dismiss the petition.
09. On the basis of the above pleadings, the
following issues were settled:
i. Whether the motor vehicle accident occurred
due to rash and negligence of the driver of crime vehicle?
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to
compensation, to what amount and if so from whom?
iii. To what relief?
10. Before the learned Tribunal, petitioner got
examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Exs.A1 to A28 & X1
to X5. On behalf of respondents, RW1 and RW2 are
examined and Exs.B1 to B3 are marked.
11. Considering the claim of petitioner and counter
affidavits filed by respondents and on evaluation of oral
and documentary evidence available on record, the
Tribunal partly allowed the Motor Vehicle Original Petition,
awarding an amount of Rs.15,47,000/- towards
compensation along with interest @ 6 % per annum from
the date of petition till the date of realization, to be
deposited by respondents.
12. Challenging the impugned Order and decree
appellants-Insurance company filed the Motor Accident
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.78 of 2019 and challenging
the quantum of compensation, appellant-petitioner has
filed this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
No.3165 of 2019 seeking enhancement of compensation
amount.
13. Heard Sri Ramachandar Rao Vemuganti,
learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Kondadi Ajay
Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Insurance company.
Perused the material available on record.
14. The main contention of the learned counsel for
petitioner is that though appellant proved his case by
adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the
documents under Exs.A1 to A28, X1 to X5, the learned
Tribunal without considering the same, erroneously
awarded meager amount towards compensation by
deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and granted
interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum only and prayed
to enhance the compensation amount.
15. On the other hand, the learned Standing
Counsel for Insurance company contended that there was
contributory negligence on the part of the driver of
petitioner and that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle
were not shown as parties and that the learned Tribunal
has taken disability at 100% instead of 70% and sought for
dismissal of the petition.
16. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for
enhancement of compensation amount in addition to
the compensation amount granted vide impugned
Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal, or whether
the impugned Order is liable to be set aside?
P O I N T:
17. This Court has perused the entire evidence and
documents available on record.
18. Petitioner himself was examined as PW1 and
reiterated the contents of the claim application and got
marked Ex.A1 to A28 and X1 to X5. He deposed that on
25.03.2010 petitioner along with one Gajula Raghu went to
N.T.P.C., Ramagundam on a Bajaj Motorcycle bearing No.
AP 36 Q 6020 and while returning to Godavarikhani at
about 09:30 PM., at Armed Reserve Headquarters,
Godavarikhani on Rajeev Rahadari, a Lorry bearing No. AP
15 Y 2888 being driven by respondent No.1 had overtaken
the bike of petitioner and negligently applied sudden
brakes without giving any signals and precautions, the
motorcycle of petitioner hit lorry and both rider and pillion
rider fell down and sustained severe injuries. Petitioner
sustained polytrauma with head injury and cervical neck
injury, another head injury involving left fronto parietal
depressed fracture, another fracture of left humerus and
left femur and cervical spine injury i.e., fracture of C5 and
C6.
19. Apart from oral evidence, petitioner had also
relied upon documentary evidence marked as Ex.A1-FIR
and Ex.A2-Charge sheet. A perusal of Ex.A1-FIR discloses
that based on a complaint, a case in Crime No.49 of 2010
by the Police, Ramagundam (Traffic) was registered for the
offences under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal
Code against respondent No.1 and took up investigation
and laid Ex.A2-Charge sheet filed against respondent No.1.
Ex.A6-Motor Vehicle Inspector Report shows that there was
no mechanical defect in the lorry.
20. As regards the manner of accident is concerned,
the Tribunal after evaluating the oral and documentary
evidence available on record, held that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
RTC Bus. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the said findings of the Tribunal which are based on
appreciation of evidence in proper perspective. It is
pertinent to state that PW1 who was the rider of the
motorcycle, being eyewitness categorically deposed about
the manner of the accident. Furthermore, Insurance
company before the Tribunal, except taking plea of
contributory negligence, did not adduce any oral or
documentary evidence to disprove the evidence of PW1.
Hence, learned Tribunal after considering above all aspects
answered the issue in favour of petitioner. Further, Police
after thorough investigation laid charge sheet against the
lorry driver stating that the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the lorry driver. Therefore, there is
no contributory negligence on the part of PW1 in the road
traffic accident and the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal No.78 of 2019 filed by Insurance company is liable
to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
21. PW2-Deputy Finance Manager, RG-III
Area, deposed that the father of petitioner being
employee in Singareni Collieries Company Limited,
claimed an amount of Rs.4,35,000/- and an
amount of Rs.1,26,231-69 ps., only was sanctioned
towards medical reimbursement.
22. PW3-Medical Superintendent in
Singareni Area Hospital, Godavarikhani about
admission of petitioner in their hospital with
following injuries:
a. Fracture of shift of humerus left.
b. Fracture lower 1/3rd femur left.
c. Fracture fronto parietal bone left.
d. Fracture of C5 and C6 spine process with
head injury.
23. PW3 further deposed that vide Ex.A15-
Referral letter dated 14.05.2010 petitioner was
referred to Kamineni Hospital at Hyderabad for
further treatment. Again vide Ex.A18-Referral
letter dated 02.07.2013 he was referred to NIMS
Hospital, Hyderabad.
24. PW4-Additioanl General Manager in RG-II
deposed that vide Ex.A24-Mines Vocational
Training copy dated 21.10.2009 petitioner had
undergone driver training at training center of
Singareni Collieries Company Limited., and
working as driver of Sri Raja Rajeshwara Travels
and Transport and earning Rs.8,000/- per month.
25. PW5-Managing Director of Sri Raja
Rajeshwara Travels and Transport deposed that
they had tie-up with Singareni Collieries Company
Limited., and that petitioner who was trained at
Singareni Collieries Company Limited., worked as
driver under PW5 and he was paid Rs.8,000/- per
month vide Ex.X23-Salary Certificate.
26. PW6-RMO of Kamineni Hospital,
Hyderabad deposed that petitioner admitted in
their hospital on 01.04.2010 and on examination,
PW6 found RTA polytrauma, head injury, left fronto
parietal depressed fracture with EDH and SAH with IVH,
fracture of left humerus and left femur and cervical spine
sugure, fracture of C5 and C6 and sepsis. All injuries are
grievous in nature. Ex.A10-Discharge summary issued by
Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad.
27. PW7-Ortho Surgeon at Yashoda Hospital,
Hyderabad deposed that he had conducted surgery for the
fracture of femur and fracture of humerus. Ex.A25-
Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board assessing
the disability of petitioner at the rate of 70% permanent
disability.
28. During cross-examination, nothing was
elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 to PW7,
except giving suggestions which were denied by the
witnesses.
29. In so far as the quantum of compensation
is concerned, petitioner is aged 27 years at the time
of accident and he was produced before the learned
Tribunal and on seeing petitioner, the learned
Tribunal has given a finding that he is not able to
walk without an iron walker and further
considering Ex.A25-Disability Certificate issued by the
Medical Board assessing the disability of petitioner at the
rate of 70% permanent disability and also taking into
account the fact that petitioner cannot work as driver as he
suffered major injuries which are grievous in nature, the
learned Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.16,32,000/-
towards of loss of future income. While calculating the
compensation, the learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of
Rs.16,32,000/- towards personal expenses of petitioner.
30. In Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti
Jadhav (dead) through Lrs. and others 1 the Honourable
Supreme Court of India held that:
"16. The High Court deducted 50% of
compensation towards personal expenses.
The present case being not of death and the
claim not being made by the dependents, but
the same being by a survivor in the accident
with severe injuries resulting into permanent
disability, there could not be any justification
for deduction of personal expenses. We do not
approve the said deduction in view of the
judgment of this Court in the case of Lalan D.
Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2"
31. In the above authority, the Honourable
Supreme Court of India made it clear that the
personal expenses cannot be deducted in the case
of the injuries. The present case on hand is of
Civil Appeal (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.26871 of 2019) & Civil Appeal (arising out of
S.L.P.(C) No. 27394 of 2019)
(2020) 9 SCC 805
injuries wherein petitioner suffered five major
injuries and became permanently disabled.
Therefore, keeping in view above settled principle
and the facts and circumstances of the case on
hand, this Court is inclined to interfere with the
findings of the learned Tribunal with regard to
deduction of personal expenses of injured-
petitioner. Therefore, without deduction of
personal expenses, petitioner is entitled for
Rs.16,32,000/- towards future loss of income.
32. In so far as interest is concerned, the
learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of
6 percent per annum, which is at lower side. This
Court by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 3
inclined to enhance the rate of interest awarded by the
learned Tribunal from 6 percent to 7.5 percent per annum,
on entire compensation amount from the date of petition
till the date of realization.
3 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
33. In view of the above discussion, this
Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner is
entitled for Rs.16,32,000/- towards future loss of
income. The compensation amount granted by the
learned Tribunal under other heads i.e.,
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.20,000/- for each injury),
Rs.3,09,000/- towards medical expenses,
Rs.50,000/- towards travel expenses and pain and
sufferance, are held good. Thus, in all, petitioner is
entitled for a total compensation of Rs.20,91,000/-. The
compensation amount is enhanced to Rs.20,91,000/- from
Rs.15,47,000/-. The entire compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum from
the date of petition till the date of realization. The
enhanced compensation amount along with enhanced
interest shall be deposited by respondents in
M.A.C.M.A.No.3165 of 2019 within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On
such deposit, petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same
without furnishing any security.
34. In the result, Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal No.78 of 2019 filed by Insurance
company, is hereby dismissed. The Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal No.3165 of 2019 filed by petitioner is
partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount
awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.15,47,000/- to
Rs.20,91,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending in these Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous
Appeals, shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 18-MAR-2024
KHRM
