P. Sanjeev Rao vs Navayuga Engineering Company Limited
2025 Latest Caselaw 4517 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4517 Tel
Judgement Date : 4 April, 2025

Telangana High Court

P. Sanjeev Rao vs Navayuga Engineering Company Limited on 4 April, 2025

                                     1



     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                     M.A.C.M.A.NO.564 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the order

and decree dated 01.06.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.273 of 2016 passed by

the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional

District Judge, Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that the

petitioner was going on his motor cycle bearing No.AP-25-R-9120

from Bodhan towards Jakranpally and that when he reached

Secundrapur Village on NH-44, one Mahindra Bolero Camper

bearing No.AP-25-X-5691 driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner at a high speed, over took the motor bike of the

petitioner and applied sudden brake without giving any signal and

danger lights, due to which the petitioner touched the backside of

Mahindra Bolero, due to which the petitioner fell down from the

vehicle and front wheel of the Bolero ran over the left leg and left

hand, as a result, he sustained grievous injuries and fractures.

Immediately, he was shifted to the Government Hospital

Nizamabad and from there to Apollo Hospital, Secunderabad and ETD,J MACMA No.564_2021

then to Yashoda Hospital, where he was treated and operated. As

per the petitioner, he is still taking treatment with other doctors

and incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is further

contended that he sustained 100% permanent disability and thus

claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle filed counter

denying the material averments, the manner of accident, age and

income of the injured-petitioner. He further contended that even if

this respondent is held to be liable, he is indemnified by

respondent No.2 and that it is only respondent No.2 who is liable

to pay the compensation if any.

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the

averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the

accident, age, avocation and income of the injured and further

contended that the driver of the Bollero Jeep does not possess a

valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that their

company is not liable to pay any compensation. He has further

denied the medical expenses of the petitioner.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the

following issues for trial:

1) Whether on 12.04.2016 at about 4:30 p.m., at Secundrapur Village on National Highway No.44, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of one Mahindra Bolero Camper bearing No.AP-25-X-5691?

ETD,J MACMA No.564_2021

2) Whether P. Sanjeev Rao received injuries in that accident?

3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent?

4) To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PWs1 and 2

and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the respondents no

oral evidence was adduced, Ex.R1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a

compensation of Rs.1,75,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the

claimant had preferred the present appeal.

9. Heard the submission of Sri P. Radhive Reddy, learned

counsel for the appellant and Sri N.S. Bhaskara Rao, learned

counsel for respondent No.2.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the

Tribunal has awarded a very meager compensation and that the

petitioner sustained 100% disability but the Tribunal has failed to

consider the same. He further argued that the Tribunal has

wrongly observed that the claimant is a Government Employee and

that his medical bills got reimbursed. He therefore, prayed to

enhance the compensation.

ETD,J MACMA No.564_2021

11. Learned counsel for respondents has submitted that the

Tribunal has correctly assessed the compensation and there is no

need to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the

following points for determination:

1. Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation, if so, to what extent?

2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

13. POINT NO.1:

a) The claimant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation

granted by the Tribunal. It is his case that he sustained grievous

injuries and was put to acute pain and suffering. The petitioner is

an ASI of Police and is covered under Arogya Bhadratha Scheme. It

is his own statement that he is working as ASI in the Police

Department.

b) PW2/Dr.Nithin deposed that the petitioner was treated

under the Arogya Bhadratha Scheme and therefore under the said

scheme he is entitled to free treatment. Hence, the medical bills

cannot be considered while awarding the compensation. No

disability certificate is filed by the petitioner to hold that he has

sustained any disability. Therefore, he is entitled to compensation ETD,J MACMA No.564_2021

only under the head "pain and suffering" and the additional

expenses towards extra nourishment, transportation, attendant

charges etc.,

c) A perusal of Ex.A3/Injury Certificate and A4/Original

Discharge Summary of Apollo Hospital reveal that the petitioner

sustained fracture of left femur, left wrist and an abrasion of left

upper eyelid. It reveals that he underwent inpatient treatment for

five days as per the discharge summary filed under Ex.A4. Thus,

considering the injuries sustained and the treatment underwent by

the claimant, the Tribunal has rightly granted Rs.1,25,000/-

towards pain and sufferings, Rs.25,000/- towards extra

nourishment, Rs.25,000/- towards transportation charges. Hence,

it is opined that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation and

thus it does not require any enhancement.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. POINT NO.2:

In view of the discussion held supra, it is held that the order

and decree passed by the Tribunal do not need any interference

and therefore, the same is upheld.

ETD,J MACMA No.564_2021

15. Point No.4:-

In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the order

and decree dated 01.06.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.273 of 2016 passed by

the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional

District Judge, Nizamabad. No costs.