Telangana High Court
Mohd Faheem Begum vs Shaik Faheemuddin on 7 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
MACMA NO.673 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
Being aggrieved by the order dated 06-08-2014 in
OP.No.5 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(for short 'M.A.C.T.') cum IX Addl. District Judge, Kamareddy,
where under, her petition vide OP.No.5 of 2013 for
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the injuries
caused to her in a road traffic accident was partly allowed by
awarding a sum of Rs.70,000/-, the petitioner in the above
referred MVOP has filed this Miscellaneous Appeal under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'M.V. Act') with a
prayer to enhance the compensation from Rs.70,000/- to
Rs.3,00,000/- on the following grounds.
2. The tribunal failed to appreciate the facts and
circumstances of the case and did not consider the evidence
of PW.2, the Medical Officer who provided treatment to her
and did not consider Ex.A3 - wound certificate and granted
meager amount of Rs.70,000/-. The appellant has also
2 SSRN, J
claimed that the tribunal failed to award reasonable amount
towards extra nourishment, transport charges, attendant
charges and only a sum of Rs.30,000/- was awarded towards
pain and sufferance in spite of the fact that she received
grievous injuries. The tribunal did not award appropriate rate
of interest, thereby, prayed for enhancement of the
compensation.
3. As could be seen from the impugned order, the
appellant herein has filed the said OP.No.5 of 2013 on the
ground that on 15-07-2012, when she and her family
members were travelling in a Maruti Omni Van bearing No.
AP 25M 2999 and when the Van reached a bridge at Adloor
Village, the driver of TATA Indica Car bearing No.AP 25AG
8600 drove the Car in a high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed the Maruti van. Therefore, she
suffered grievous injuries. The appellant has claimed that the
accident caused dislocation of right side hip, fracture of
femoral head, fracture of neck femur, fracture of ribs apart
from other grievous injuries. Therefore, the appellant has
filed the above referred petition against the owner and insurer
3 SSRN, J
of the above said TATA Indica Car. Both the respondents
have opposed the claim by filing separate written statements.
The tribunal has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the incident happened due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the TATA Indica Car
bearing No.AP 25AG 8600?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation
amount? If so, from whom and to what amount?
3. To what relief?
4. During the enquiry, the appellant herein was
examined as PW.1 and Civil Asst., Government Surgeon,
Medical Officer, Kamareddy, who provided treatment to the
appellant herein was examined as PW.2. She has marked
Exs.A1 to A13 which includes certified copies of FIR, charge
sheet etc. with regard to case registered against the driver of
the above said car and also the medical record.
Consequently, Insurance Company has examined its
employee as RW.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B3.
5. The tribunal having appreciated the pleadings and
evidence of all the witnesses, came to a conclusion that the
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the
4 SSRN, J
driver of Indica Car and also found that the petitioner received
injuries and awarded an amount of Rs.70,000/-.
6. Heard both parties.
7. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the tribunal failed to appreciate the oral and
documentary evidence produced by the appellant in a proper
way and granted insufficient amount as compensation, if so,
whether the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation?
8. The appellant herein has filed the above said
original petition for compensation on account of the injuries
caused to her in a road traffic accident. The appellant has
claimed that she suffered grievous injuries. One of the said
injury was dislocation of the hip on right side. The appellant
has claimed that due to the said injury, she has incurred an
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for treatment, extra nourishment
and lost considerable income in view of the injuries caused to
her. The tribunal having accepted the contentions of the
appellant, when she received injuries in a road accident and
the said accident was caused due to the rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the TATA Indica Car, awarded an
amount of Rs.70,000/- which includes an amount of
5 SSRN, J
Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for pain and sufferance,
Rs.15,000/- towards medicines, hospital charges, Rs.10,000/-
towards loss of income and Rs.15,000/- towards attendant
charges, transportation, expenditure and extra nourishment.
9. Even though, the respondents No.1 and 2 have
disputed the claim of appellant about the manner of accident
and though they claimed that there was no such rash or
negligent driving by the driver of the car, the tribunal having
appreciated the evidence of PW.1 and the other record
including the charge sheet filed against the car driver, found
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving by the driver of TATA Indica Car owned by respondent
No.1 and which was insured with respondent No.2. The
respondents did not file any appeal against the said finding.
10. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant
questioning the quantum of compensation. The learned
counsel for the appellant has argued that the evidence of
PWs.1 and 2 coupled with medical record clearly shows that
the appellant suffered fracture of the hip and other grievous
6 SSRN, J
injuries. But the Court below granted a meager amount of
Rs.70,000/-.
11. According to the evidence of PW.2, he has
deposed before the tribunal that the injuries mentioned in
Ex.A3 are grievous in nature. It seems, the appellant suffered
dislocation of the hip on the right side. Even though, the
appellant has filed discharge summary from KIMS Hospital
and Poulymi Hospital respectively, the tribunal did not accept
these two documents on the ground that the appellant could
not examine the concerned Medical Officers from the above
said hospitals. According to the evidence of PW.2, it is very
clear that the injuries mentioned in Ex.B2 are corresponding
with the injuries noted in Exs.A4 and A6 discharge
summaries. There is no evidence from the side of
respondent/Insurance Company to establish that these
discharge summaries were created by the appellant herein.
When the evidence of PW.2 itself shows that the appellant
suffered grievous injury like dislocation of hip and was treated
in two Corporate Hospitals which is evident from Exs.A4 and
A6, the Court below could have considered that she must
7 SSRN, J
have incurred minimum expenditure for obtaining treatment.
As rightly claimed by the appellant that the tribunal awarded
only a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and sufferings by
ignoring the evidence of PW.2 that the appellant received
multiple grievous injuries.
12. Even though, the contention of appellant that she
spent Rs.2,00,000/- is not supported by any acceptable
evidence in view of the failure of the appellant to examine a
concerned billing employee from the above referred two
Hospitals, but still the Court can consider that unless she
spent minimum expenditure, she could not have obtained
treatment from the said Hospitals. Therefore, the Court below
could have awarded a reasonable compensation for the
injuries as well as towards medical expenditure. Since the
evidence of PW.2 and Ex.A3 shows that the appellant suffered
a blunt injury over right hip, deformity of hip joint, swelling
and loss of function, a reasonable amount of Rs.60,000/- can
be awarded towards pain and sufferance of the above injury.
In view of the gravity of the injury, she could have obtained
the treatment from the above referred two Hospitals and must
8 SSRN, J
have spent at least Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, in addition to the
amount already awarded by the tribunal, the appellant is
entitled to an amount of Rs.60,000/-. Therefore, the same
can be awarded in favour of the appellant.
13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The
compensation amount is increased from Rs.70,000/- to
Rs.1,30,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date
of accident till the entire amount is realized.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are
closed. No costs.
________________________
SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, J
7th March, 2024
PLV
