Telangana High Court
A Ganesh vs M/S Sarvahitha Education Society on 4 March, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1023 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - The Court of Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (hereinafter be referred as 'the
Tribunal') in O.P.No.394 of 2013, dated 23.12.2017, the claim
petitioner filed the present Appeal seeking for enhancement of
compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the claim petitioner
filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained
by him in an accident that occurred on 24.11.2011. It is stated by
the petitioner that on 24.11.2011, when the petitioner was
proceeding on his Scooty bearing No.AP-9AB-2467 from
Bowenpally towards open military ground and when reached at
open military ground, Swarnadhamanagar, Bowenpally, at that
time, one Maruthi Wagon- R VXI Car bearing No.AP-29-AQ-9947
came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed
the Scooty of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained
MGP,J
multiple fractures and injuries all over the body and the Scooty
was completely damaged. The said accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of Car bearing No.AP-
29AQ-9947. The Police, Bowenpally Police Station, registered a
case in Crime No.409 of 2011 under Section 337 IPC against the
driver of the car. It is stated by the petitioner that he incurred
more than a sum of Rs.50,000/- for his treatment. It is further
stated by the petitioner that he is working as private employee and
earning Rs.8,000/- per month and hence claimed compensation of
Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest which is payable by both the
respondents jointly and severally.
4. Respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2-
Insurance company filed its counter and denied all the material
averments made in the claim petition including, manner of
accident, involvement of crime vehicle, rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the car, age, occupation and income of the
petitioner, nature of injuries sustained and amount incurred by
him and finally stated that the claim of compensation is excess and
exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against it.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had
framed the following issues:
MGP,J
1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in
injuries to the petitioner, A.Ganesh, due to the rasha dn
negligent driving of the motor vehicle (Maruthi Wagon-R
VXI Car bearing NO.AP 29AQ 9947) by its driver?
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?
6. In order to prove the above issues, the petitioner himself
was examined as PW1 and got examined PWs 2 to 4 and got
marked Exs.A1 to A14 and Exs.X1 and X2 on his behalf. None of
the witnesses were examined on behalf of respondents. However,
Ex.B1-Copy of insurance policy was marked on their behalf.
7. The learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence
and documents marked on either sides, had partly allowed the
claim petition filed by the petitioners by awarding compensation of
Rs.5,76,800/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date
of petition till the date of realization which is payable by
Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Being not satisfied with the compensation
awarded, the petitioner in O.P. filed the present Appeal seeking for
enhancement of the same.
MGP,J
8. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent
No.2-Insurance company. Perused the material available on record.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for Appellant is
that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the
appellant as Rs.8,000/- per month and ought to have considered
loss of earning capacity @ 100%. He also contends that the
learned Tribunal failed to award compensation under the Head of
Attendant charges, physiotherapy treatment charges, etc and also
ought to have awarded more interest and prays to allow the appeal
by enhancing the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-
Insurance company contended that the learned Tribunal, after
considering the entire evidence and documents available on record,
awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this
Court is unwarranted.
11. Now the point that arise for determination is,
Whether the order of the learned Tribunal requires interference
of this Court?
MGP,J
POINT:
12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
available on record. The claim petitioner himself examined as
PW1. He reiterated the contents made in the claim petition and
deposed about the manner of accident and injuries sustained to
him. He stated that due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of Maruthi Wagon-R VXI Car bearing No.AP-29-AQ 9947, he
met with an accident and the relative of PW1 gave complaint to
police under Ex.A1. Based on the complaint, the police after
conducting thorough investigation, laid charge sheet under Ex.A2
against the driver of the Wagon-R car. Though the 2nd respondent-
Insurance company contended that the driver of the said car do
not possess valid driving license and respondent no.1 knowingly
handed over the same to him, but they have not examined any
witness in support of their contention.
13. It is pertinent to mention that there is no dispute with regard
to the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the
petitioner. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for
appellant is with regard to compensation awarded. In this regard,
it is pertinent to refer to the evidence of PW2, who is an RMO in
Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, who stated in his evidence that
MGP,J
the petitioner was admitted in their hospital on 25.11.2011 with
history of road traffic accident at Bowenpally and he sustained
multiple injuries i.e., (i) Aultion injury of left eye, (ii) Fracture of
nasal bones, (iii) Fracture of right humerous, (iv) Fracture inferior
and superior ramii bilateral pelvis. Enucleation was done on
28.11.2011. DDC compression glating was done on 03.12.2011
and he was discharged on 09.12.2011. In the cross-examination,
he stated that he was deposing based on the records and he was
not working in Gandhi hospital as on the date when the petitioner
was admitted in their hospital.
14. Coming to the evidence of PW3, who is an Opthalmologist in
S.D.Eye Hospital, deposed in his evidence that the petitioner
approached him on 06.05.2014 for visual handicapped certificate.
Upon examination of the petitioner, he issued visual handicapped
certificate assessing the disability @ 30% under Ex.A9.
15. The evidence of PW4, who is an Orthopaedic surgeon,
deposed in his evidence that the petitioner came to their hospital
on 13.12.2015 for obtaining disability certificate. He verified
previous old records of Gandhi Hospital and found that he
sustained fracture of shaft humerour right, inferior pubic rami
fracture of right (R), superior pubic rami fracture (R), Inferior
MGP,J
public rami fracture (L) superior public rami fracture left (L) and
loss of left eye and issued Ex.A13 disability certificate assessing
the disability @ 30% which is partial and permanent in nature. He
also stated that the petitioner was suffering from stiffness of right
shoulder, difficulty in lifting weights and he gave estimation
certificate for removal of implants @ Rs.30,000/-. Exs.A11 to A14
are issued him. In the cross-examination, he admitted that
removal of implants in Government Hospitals is free of cost. He
stated that as the petitioner had underwent Enucleation of left eye,
he assessed the visual disability @ 30%.
16. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, though the
petitioner stated that he is working as private employee and
earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month and produced Ex.A8-
Salary certificate issued by AK Constructions showing his salary as
Rs.7,300/- per month, including other allowances, but he has not
examined the concerned in support of the said document. The
learned Tribunal, considering the age of the petitioner, fixed he
monthly income as Rs.4,000/-. This Court upon considering the
date of accident and disability sustained to the appellant, is
inclined to interfere with the finding arrived at by the learned
Tribunal and hereby fix the monthly income of the appellant as
MGP,J
Rs.4,500/-. So far as assessing of disability is concerned, the
learned Tribunal fixed the disability @ 30% which this Court feels
that it is on lower side and requires further consideration as per
evidence of PWs3 & 4. PW3, who is an Opthalmologist in S.D.Eye
Hospital, verified the appellant and issued visual Handicapped
certificate under Ex.A9 assessing the disability @ 30%. Also, the
evidence of PW4, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon, shows that he
issued disability certificate under Ex.A13 assessing the disability @
30% for the fractures sustained by the appellant. Therefore, this
Court by considering Exs.A9 & A13 disability certificates, hereby
fix the disability sustained to the appellant @ 60%. Since the
appellant sustained disability @ 60% and as he was aged 22 years
at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '18'. By
applying the multiplier '18', the loss of dependency comes to
Rs.5,83,200/- (Rs.4,500x12x18x60%). That apart, the learned
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- for pain and sufferance,
Rs.20,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs.10,000/- towards medical
expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and extra
nourishment, Rs.30,000/- for removal of plants and Rs.1,00,000/-
for loss of future prospects of marriage and Rs.24,000/- for loss of
earnings for a period of six months, which in total comes to
Rs.7,97,200/-.
MGP,J
17. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.5,76,800/- to Rs.7,97,200/-. The appellant is directed to
deposit deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount.
Insofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, in
the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and
others v. Rajbir Singh and others 1, the appellant is entitled for
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization instead of 6% payable by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly
and severally within a period of one month from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
18. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.04.03.2024
ysk
1 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
