Telangana High Court

Utalwar , Uduthala Prathyusha vs Velumule Pentaiah And Another on 22 October, 2024

             HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                           M.A.C.M.A.No.4 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Chairman, Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Adilabad

(for short, the Tribunal) in M.V.O.P.No.336 of 2014, dated

15.11.2016, the claim petitioner preferred the present Appeal

seeking for compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be

referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim

petitioner/injured, being a minor child, is being represented by her

father, who is a natural guardian and filed a petition under Section

166(1)(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 read with Rule 455 of

A.P.Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of

Rs.50,000/- for the injuries sustained to her in a Motor Vehicle

Accident that occurred on 17.04.2014. It is stated by the

petitioner that on 17.04.2014, when she, along with her

grandmother- Ushanna Mallakka and one Mahendranath were

proceeding in an Auto-Rickshaw bearing No.TS-01UB-0169

belonging to respondent No.1 from Gannaram Village and when the

said Auto reached near the outskirts of Gannaram Village at about

17.30 p.m. near a newly constructed building, the driver of the

MGP,J

said Auto drove the vehicle at a high speed in a rash and negligent

manner, due to which the Auto went to the right side of the road

and turned turtle. As a result, the petitioner and her grandmother

-Ushanna Mallakka sustained injuries and were admitted in Sirpur

Town Government Hospital and thereafter took treatment in a

private hospital. Due to the said injuries, the petitioner had

undergone several tests, examinations and X-rays and thus

incurred medical expenses to an extent of Rs.15,000/-. It is stated

by the petitioner that she was hale and healthy prior to the

accident and due to the said accident and sustaining of injuries,

she could not attend to school and suffered loss of academic year

and unable to attend her day to day activities and is still

undergoing treatment. As the petitioner suffered injuries on the

left forehand apart from all over the body, she suffered both

physically and mentally apart from pain shock and agony and as

such, she claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- which is payable

by Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the Auto bearing No.TS-

01-UB-0169 and respondent No.2, who is the insurer of the said

Auto.

4. Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the subject Auto,

remained ex-parte.

MGP,J

5. Respondent No.2 filed his counter denying the averments

made in the claim petition and contended that the occurrence of

accident was not due to the negligence on part of the Auto bearing

No.TS-01-UB-0169 but due to the negligence on part of the

petitioner as she got into an overloaded Auto at the time of

accident. It also denied the injuries sustained by the petitioner

including medical expenses, pain and suffering, shock and agony

and loss of academic year, transportation charges, treatment

undergone by her. It is further contended by the Insurance

Company that respondent No.1 violated the terms of policy as they

did not inform them about the accident or registration of crime

against the Auto and that respondent No.1 allowed a person who

do not possess any driving licence to drive the said Auto at the

time of accident resulting in the accident and hence, the Insurance

Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. It

also contended that the compensation claimed is excess, exorbitant

and without any basis and hence prayed to dismiss the same.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had

framed the following issues:-

i. Whether the accident took place on 17.04.2014 due to the rash and negligent driving of the Auto bearing No.TS-01-UB-0169 by its driver or whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner?

MGP,J

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

iii. To what relief.

7. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner/injured, her

father was examined as PW1 and through him, Exs.A1 to A5 were

marked on their behalf. On behalf of the respondents, no witness

was examined and no documents were marked.

8. Based on the evidence and documents filed on behalf ofthe

petitioner, the learned Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition of

the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce

substantive piece of evidence showing that she suffered injuries,

pain, shock, agony, medical expenses and also lost academic year

due to the alleged accident. Aggrieved by the said finding, the

claim petitioner preferred the present Appeal seeking for grant of

compensation.

9. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned

Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant

is that though the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto

bearing No.TS-01-UB-0169, but it did not grant any compensation

to the appellant for the injuries sustained to her in the said

MGP,J

accident and erroneously dismissed the claim petition. He also

contended that the appellant was a student and due to the injuries

sustained to the appellant, she could not attend to the school and

had suffered loss of academic year, as such, she is entitled for

compensation. He also contended that the learned Tribunal erred

in not granting any amount under the heads of pain and agony,

medical expenses, extra-nourishment and other heads etc. which

is against the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court and hence, prayed to allow the Appeal by awarding

reasonable compensation.

11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent

No.2-Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal,

after considering all the aspects, had rightly dismissed the claim

petition and interference of this Court is unwarranted.

12. Now, the point that emerges for consideration is,

Whether the order of the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court?

POINT:-

13. This Court has perused the evidence and documents

available on record. The father of the petitioner was examined as

PW1. He reiterated the contents made in the claim petition and

deposed that on 17.04.214, when the petitioner along with her

MGP,J

grandmother-Mallakka boarded an Auto bearing No.TS-01-UB-

0169 and were proceeding towards Gannaram Village and when

reached outskirts of the said Village, the driver of the Auto drove

the said vehicle in a rash and negligent mannerat a high speed and

went off on the right side of the road. As such, the crime auto

turned turtle and resulted in the accident. Immediately after the

accident, she was admitted in Government Hospital and later took

treatment in a private hospital. During the course of treatment,

she had undergone several tests, examinations and X-rays and

thus incurred medical expenses to an extent of Rs.15,000/-.

However, the learned Tribunal had not considered the medical

expenditure for the reason that the petitioner has not filed any

documentary proof to show that the petitioner has spent

Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenditure. In support of his

evidence, he got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Ex.A1-FIR shows that Police

of Easgaon Police Station registered a case in Crime No.52 of 2014,

conducted investigation and laid charge sheet against the driver of

the crime Auto under Ex.A2. Ex.A3-Injury Certificate shows that

the petitioner had suffered abrasion on left shoulder and abrasion

on left forehead and was treated in Government Hospital at Sirpur

Town of Adilabad District. Ex.A4 -Copy of insurance policy shows

that the subject Auto was having valid insurance as on the date of

accident. Ex.A5 is the Registration Certificate of the crime Auto.

MGP,J

14. A bare perusal of Exs.A1 & A2 clearly shows that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the Auto bearing No.TS-01-UB-0169. Learned counsel for

the appellant vehemently argued before this Court that though the

petitioner had suffered an abrasion on left shoulder and abrasion

on left forehead and filed an injury certificate vide Ex.A3 and had

proved the case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence, but

the learned Tribunal had not accepted the same as Ex.A3-Injury

Certificate does not disclose the date when she had suffered

injuries and further disbelieved that the injuries are caused due to

the accident and hence dismissed the claim petition of the

petitioner.

15. On the other hand, it is also important to note that the

respondent, except putting suggestions to the petitioner that she is

not entitled for any compensation, have not adduced any kind of

evidence either oral or documentary to disbelieve or disprove the

contention of the petitioner. Though no documentary proof is filed

to show that the petitioner has incurred Rs.15,000/- towards

medical expenses, however, admittedly, even in a Government

Hospital, though the treatment will be given free of cost, but the

patients have to purchase the medicines. Under these

circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

MGP,J

learned Tribunal, without considering the admitted facts, had

erroneously dismissed the claim petition of the petitioner. Hence,

this Court is inclined to interfere with the Award passed by the

learned Tribunal and hereby award compensation under the

following heads which are mentioned below:-

S.No.       Name of the Head under      Amount awarded
            which compensation is
            awarded
1           Two Simple injuries         Rs.10,000/- (Rs.5,000/-
                                                          each)

2           Pain and Sufferance         Rs.10,000/-

3           Amount incurred for         Rs.10,000/-
            purchase of medicines
4           Attendant charges and       Rs.5,000/-
            transportation charges
5           Extra Nourishment           Rs.5,000/-

            TOTAL                       Rs.40,000/-

16. In the result, the Appeal filed by the claimant is partly

allowed by awarding compensation of Rs.40,000/- along with

interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization payable by Respondent Nos.1 to 2 jointly and severally

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order. Upon such deposit, as the appellant being a minor

child, the compensation awarded by this Court shall be kept under

fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank till the appellant attains

majority and the interest accrued on the deposited amount is

MGP,J

permitted to be withdrawn by the father of the appellant, for the

day- to- day expenses incurred by him on the minor child