Telangana High Court
Voddi Vidhya Sagar vs Md. Najmuddin , Mohammed Najmuddin And ... on 9 April, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.248 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the claimant-petitioner, aggrieved
by the Order and Decree dated 26.12.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.284 of
2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Principal District Judge), Adilabad (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred
to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief averments of the petitioner before the Tribunal
are that on 11.11.2018 at about 15.00 hours at Bokkalagutta
village, while the injured was proceeding on motor bike, a car
bearing No.TS-22-A-9594 driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner dashed his motorcycle, as a result he fell
down and sustained fractures and grievous injuries.
Thereupon, immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital
and from there to Sunshine Hospital, Karimnagar, where he
underwent operation and undergone treatment for the injuries
sustained by him. His case is that he incurred huge
expenditure of Rs.50,000/- towards his treatment and he was
ETD,J
MACMA No.248_2021
earning Rs.32,000/- as a police constable and he was aged 30
years. He filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking
compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.
4. Respondent No.1, the driver-cum-owner of the crime
vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
5. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company has filed
counter denying the averments of the petition regarding
occurrence of the accident, the age and income of the injured-
petitioner and they further contended that there is no negligence
of the driver of the car and that the accident occurred only due
to the negligence of the petitioner herein.
6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has
framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the petitioner had sustained injuries in the accident that
occurred on 11.11.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of Swift
Dzire Car bearing No.TS-22A-9594 by respondent No.1 or wither
there was any negligence on the part of the rider of Motorcycle as
alleged by the respondent No.2?
2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of
the Motorcycle as parties in this petition?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what
amount and against whom?
4. To what relief ?
7. To prove their case, the petitioner himself got examined as
P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.15. On behalf of the
respondents, no evidence was adduced.
ETD,J
MACMA No.248_2021
8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted
a compensation of Rs.1,33,333/-. Aggrieved by the said order
and decree dated 26.12.2020, the present appeal is filed by the
appellant.
9. Heard Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance
Company.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
the Tribunal has granted very meagre compensation without
considering the evidence of the petitioner, that he incurred huge
medical expenditure but the Tribunal failed to consider the
same. He further submitted that the petitioner suffered a lot
due to the fracture injuries and the pain and suffering
underwent by him is not properly assessed by the Tribunal. He
also submitted that the petitioner incurred much amount on
additional expenditure and that Tribunal has not awarded any
amounts regarding the same and therefore prayed to enhance
the compensation.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted
that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and
that the petitioner is working as police constable and his
ETD,J
MACMA No.248_2021
medical bills were reimbursed and therefore amount granted by
the Tribunal itself is more than required and has prayed not to
interfere with the order and decree passed by the Tribunal.
12. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames
the following points for determination:-
1. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
2. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference?
3. To what relief?
13. Point No.1:-
a) It is asserted that the petitioner was aged 30 years at the
time of accident and that he was working as police constable.
Once he is working as a police constable, he is entitled for
reimbursement under Arogya Badratha scheme and there is no
need to pay any amount towards treatment. A perusal of the
medical bills and the discharge summaries of the petitioner
reveals that they are attested copies filed by the petitioner. It is
the common knowledge that the original copies are required to
be submitted by the petitioner to the department for making
claim of his medical expenditure and thus he has filed the
attested copies. Though he incurred expenses for treatment, the
said amount was paid by the department. However, the injured
must have incurred some incidental expenses. He must have
ETD,J
MACMA No.248_2021
required at least one attendant and also some amount needs to
be granted towards compensation under the heads pain and
suffering, extra nourishment, transportation charges and
attendant charges. The Tribunal has granted an amount of
Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- towards
transportation, medicines, extra nourishment and attendant
charges, granted an amount of Rs.53,333/- towards loss of
earnings by taking into consideration Ex.A.14 which reveals that
the petitioner was paid only half pay for 100 days. Considering
all these heads, the Tribunal has granted an amount of
Rs.1,33,333/-. Therefore, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the said amount granted by the Tribunal is found
to be just and reasonable. Thus, this Court finds that there is
no reason to interfere with the amounts granted by the Tribunal.
Hence Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
14. Point No.2:-
b) In view of the finding at point No.1, 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.248_2021
15. Point No.3:-
In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order
and Decree dated 26.12.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.284 of 2018 passed
by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal
District Judge), Adilabad. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal,
shall stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 9.04.2025
Bw
ETD,J
MACMA No.248_2021
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.248 OF 2021
Date: 09.04.2025.
Bw
